The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

any union is a commitment in perpetuity - that applies to all of the UK, the EU, and a currency union if iScotland were to be granted one.

Given that everyone knows that iScotland would not be committed to a CU and that causes big dangers for the pound (far greater than any other option), I just can't see any CU happening.

(I do see some sort of temporary arrangement that's presented as "helping iScotland during the transition" but which won't be to iScotland's particular advantage, it will be something iScotland will have to go along with purely because other options are worse for iScotland [during that transition, if not longer-term]).

Incidentally, I see Ruth Davidson has said she would campaign for CU if there was yes vote & she believed it was the best option.

I also read that UK opinion seems to support CU.

Of course, neither of the above prove anything, just found them both quite interesting.

[LJS]

Do you think there's even brighter forecasts for Scotland's future than the SNP are giving?

The SNP's forecast is the very best case anyone anywhere is suggesting iScotland could have, and even that doesn't forecast a rosy long-term future, merely an adequate long-term future.

And you accept that the reality will be worse.

So be sure you understand that, from the best projections mixed with your own opinions, iScotland's financial future is lesser than it would be if stayed within the UK.

I understood the Snp were going to make me £1k richer in about 15 years.

I haven't said things will be worse. I believe it is likely that Scotland will be no worse of in the medium to long term. I have said I am not basing my vote on any expectations of economic miracles.

[eFestivals]

Incidentally, I see Ruth Davidson has said she would campaign for CU if there was yes vote & she believed it was the best option.

"best option" - for who?

I also read that UK opinion seems to support CU.

that's UK opinion in 2013, before they understood the question.

How do you think the same question phrased as "do you think that the rUK should underwrite iScotland's banks?" would go down?

Of course, neither of the above prove anything, just found them both quite interesting.

There's very very little that's interesting in anything which ultimately means "I want what works best for me".

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I understood the Snp were going to make me £1k richer in about 15 years.

That's what they want you to think, but you've already said that you don't. People fuck up, remember?

I haven't said things will be worse. I believe it is likely that Scotland will be no worse of in the medium to long term.

it's 3% a year worse off immediately and forever, according to Swinney.

Any improvements in Scotland's economy post-indy will first have to cover-off that 3% before there's any economic advantage from indy.

Will iScotland be able to manage sustained growth at above the European average over decades?

Only a fool would think it might, unless there's money drop out of the sky by some means (such as new oil finds beyond the best projections of right now [which let's face it, is hugely unlikely]).

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I see there's another Panelbase poll (widely known as the least accurate, unfortunately for 'yes') that has the gap as 48% / 52%.

Rather amusingly, Blair Jenkins welcomed this poll which still shows yes losing as 'a breakthrough'.

(that's about as ridiculous as PR over the facts ever gets).

I'm thinking that if any opinion poll does creep over the 50% mark, the opinion poll taken after that will show some fast back-tracking - tho we'll have to wait and see, if it ever happens.

[LJS]

There have been 3 polls in the last week which have been broadly similar.

Times they are a changin'...(or not, as the case may be)

[viberunner]

A constitution is meaningless at the end of the day. It's simply another law that can be overturned by lawmakers.

Actually the Supreme Court has upheld the American Constitution in many regards, especially freedom of speech.

The point of a constitution is you set the revoke threshold much higher than for standard laws (e.g. you might require 66% of the vote rather than 51%), moreover attempting to change a constitution is a very open act compared to other lawmaking and can rally a public.

I'm certainly not naive a constitution is anything like an infallible safeguard, but they seem a stronger safeguard than ordinary laws alone, sometimes in even quite grime "regimey" places.

[viberunner]

I see there's another Panelbase poll (widely known as the least accurate, unfortunately for 'yes') that has the gap as 48% / 52%.

Rather amusingly, Blair Jenkins welcomed this poll which still shows yes losing as 'a breakthrough'.

Given the original share for YES was thirty something percent (IIRC) then yes, narrowing to within the statistical margin of error is a mighty fucking advancement.

[eFestivals]

There have been 3 polls in the last week which have been broadly similar.

Times they are a changin'...(or not, as the case may be)

the gap has narrowed again you mean - but every previous time it's done that it's opened out again quite quickly.

[eFestivals]

Given the original share for YES was thirty something percent (IIRC) then yes, narrowing to within the statistical margin of error is a mighty fucking advancement.

it's a big claim to call it "within the statistical margin of error", because there's not a jot of evidence to suggest an error.

But PR over facts and substance from the yes-ers, exactly like those Eton-attending English tories? Who'd have thought it?

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Actually the Supreme Court has upheld the American Constitution in many regards, especially freedom of speech.

The point of a constitution is you set the revoke threshold much higher than for standard laws (e.g. you might require 66% of the vote rather than 51%), moreover attempting to change a constitution is a very open act compared to other lawmaking and can rally a public.

I'm certainly not naive a constitution is anything like an infallible safeguard, but they seem a stronger safeguard than ordinary laws alone, sometimes in even quite grime "regimey" places.

Nice ... I'm noticing how you think the reversable constitution should have undemocratic protections, but that you won't truck anything similar for the 100% irreversible choice that gets you to that constitution in the first place - in fact, Scotland has spent the last 30+ years complaining of others doing just that!

Anyone might think that the un-democrats are well down the road with their plans to steal the place no differently to Westminster, and the numpties of Scotland have yet to wake up to what's happening.

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Given the original share for YES was thirty something percent (IIRC) then yes, narrowing to within the statistical margin of error is a mighty fucking advancement.

there's a lot of interesting things can be said about that 15% extra support that yes has gained, by looking at what the British Social Attitudes survey had to say.

And that says that those 15% have believed the over-optimistic guff spouted by St Alex, despite the fact that it's majority opinion of the true experts in these areas that he's badly wrong.

This is the "sophisticated electorate" that Scotland is claiming, where people are voting against their own opinions.

You might get the outcome of the vote you're wanting, but the real outcome is going to hit you and many others very hard.

Edited June 17, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Just a bit of fun

Commonwealth Games gaffe by Hague as he throws support behind Team GB

Tuesday 17 June 2014

William Hague has insisted he is confident Team GB will deliver "another spectacular performance" at the Commonwealth Games

Edited June 17, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

more fun :)

Millport To Go It Alone In New Independence Shock

The movement of the polls may be going only one way, with the Yes campaign on a roll and Better Together lurching from one inadequate catchphrase to the next, but this weekend was not all good news for Alex Salmond.

In a new blow to the First Minister's assertions that life will be business as usual - only better - following a Yes vote in September's referendum, officials in Millport on the island of Cumbrae have indicated that if Scotland secedes from the Union, and the country takes its place in the world order as the Former United Caledonian Kingdom of Scotland, Millport is likely to seek independence for itself. While some commentators and political analysts are sceptical of Millport's chances of going it alone, others point to the fact that Millport is rich in natural resources - such as fish suppers, rock and cycle hire - and is well suited to become the Liechtenstein of the west.

[LJS]

there's a lot of interesting things can be said about that 15% extra support that yes has gained, by looking at what the British Social Attitudes survey had to say.

And that says that those 15% have believed the over-optimistic guff spouted by St Alex, despite the fact that it's majority opinion of the true experts in these areas that he's badly wrong.

This is the "sophisticated electorate" that Scotland is claiming, where people are voting against their own opinions.

You might get the outcome of the vote you're wanting, but the real outcome is going to hit you and many others very hard.

Not quite sure where you get all this from what I have read of the British attitudes survey, most of which is pretty vague & woolly anyway.

Irrespective of who is right and wrong in their projections, perhaps the poll which you dismissed (because it didn't fit with your narrative ? ) which said that Scots trusted Holyrood over Westminster by a margin of 3 to 1 might explain why a significant proportion are buying the "over-optimistic guff spouted by St Alex"

Equally, it may explain why much of the No Campaign "guff" is treated with a fair degree of scepticism even when it comes from allegedly independent sources.

Incidentally, I don't suggest that all studies etc which support the No side are biaised, I am sure a good proportion of them are genuine attempts to give an honest assessment of the likely future.

I have read plausible & convincing cases being made on both sides & in general don't automatically "rubbish" anything that does not support my case.

You appear to have a default position of automatically assuming any study that suggests Scotland might be pretty successful is nonsense or " a total crock of shit" no matter how qualified the author is.

E.g.

Andrew Hughes Hallett is Professor of Economics and Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and in the School of Economics at St Andrews University in Scotland. Previously he was Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University and at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland. He is a graduate of the University of Warwick (UK) and London School of Economics, holds a Doctorate from Oxford University. He has been Visiting Professor and Fulbright Fellow at Princeton University, Bundesbank Professor at the Free University of Berlin, and has held visiting positions at the Universities of Warwick, Frankfurt, Rome, Paris X, Cardiff, Copenhagen and the Kennedy School at Harvard.

or as you describe him..." that idiot writer"

I must commend you for your brevity!

Now of course if I were to go online elsewhere & talk in such a way about better together I would be a filthy Cybernat

Edited June 17, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Nice ... I'm noticing how you think the reversable constitution should have undemocratic protections, but that you won't truck anything similar for the 100% irreversible choice that gets you to that constitution in the first place - in fact, Scotland has spent the last 30+ years complaining of others doing just that!

Anyone might think that the un-democrats are well down the road with their plans to steal the place no differently to Westminster, and the numpties of Scotland have yet to wake up to what's happening.

sorry,

Didn't understand a word of that nonsense

[LJS]

it's a big claim to call it "within the statistical margin of error", because there's not a jot of evidence to suggest an error.

But PR over facts and substance from the yes-ers, exactly like those Eton-attending English tories? Who'd have thought it?

really, Neil?

you don't understand about "margin of error" in opinion polls?

You really think it refer to some sort of mistake?

Do you want me to explain?

I won't insult you because you know exactly what viberunner means but couldn't resist the chance to compare us Yes voters to the Bullingdon club.

[LJS]

"THE premier of China Li Keqiang has called for the UK to stay united during a press conference with Prime Minister David Cameron in London."

Wow! That will swing a lot of votes!

For fuck(s sake how stupid do they think we are?

[LJS]

Now there has been a lot of talk of so called devo-max & how that is what us Scots really want even though Mr David denied us the opportunity to vote for it in what now looks like an increasingly high-risk strategy.

It would appear for a significant number of voters, that the ability of the unionist parties to convince them that Westminster will bestow increased powers to Holyrood could be the difference between defeat & victory come September.

Now I have talked before about the scepticism some of us feel about about the promises of great new powers that the Unionist parties are falling over each other to tempt us with.

Let's assume they are genuine. let's assume they really believe this is the best way to organise the government of the UK & not a cynical manouvre to head off the rising tide of yes supporters.

Let's also remove the LibDems from the equation as they are not going to form the next government of the UK.

So, whoever wins the next election (so that will be Labour or conservative) will legislate to give more powers to Holyrood?

If you asked me to bet on who will win the next Westminster election, I would say the conservatives, but whoever wins, I would imagine it will be fairly close. So the governing party will probably be working with a small majority. Both parties have elements that are implacably opposed to further devolution & at the very least it will be difficult for them to get any such proposals through parliament. In other words they CANNOT guarantee devo max.

Now I want independence, I don't want devo max ...although I will take that as a second prize ...but the unionist parties are in danger of fucking up on a massive scale because they thought they could blow the whole indy project out of the water by forcing through a Yes/No question.

[eFestivals]

Edited June 18, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

sorry,

Didn't understand a word of that nonsense

You've got the first bit right, anyway. It's an improvement.

[eFestivals]

really, Neil?

you don't understand about "margin of error" in opinion polls?

You really think it refer to some sort of mistake?

Do you want me to explain?

I won't insult you because you know exactly what viberunner means but couldn't resist the chance to compare us Yes voters to the Bullingdon club.

It doesn't require attendance at Oxford to be stupid, you know.

[eFestivals]

"THE premier of China Li Keqiang has called for the UK to stay united during a press conference with Prime Minister David Cameron in London."

Wow! That will swing a lot of votes!

For fuck(s sake how stupid do they think we are?

Stupid enough to see that as a no conspiracy?

[eFestivals]

Now there has been a lot of talk of so called devo-max & how that is what us Scots really want even though Mr David denied us the opportunity to vote for it in what now looks like an increasingly high-risk strategy.

iScotland will be a better democracy, where the electorate don't understand democracy.

Or perhaps, you might throw away the ridiculous conspiracy theories and study what the people of Scotland voted for instead?

FFS.

[eFestivals]

So, whoever wins the next election (so that will be Labour or conservative) will legislate to give more powers to Holyrood?

If you want a guarantee of that, vote for a party that guarantees you that.

It's not the job of the horrible outsiders so detested in Scotland to set the Scottish political agenda.

If Scotland were intellectually ready for indy, these things you'd already know.

If you asked me to bet on who will win the next Westminster election, I would say the conservatives,

On the basis of what? Certainly not any facts or polling.

Perhaps on the basis that having that belief and telling others your belief will help deliver the indy you want via that against-the-facts belief? (this is the whole of the yes campaign in a single sentence ).

In other words they CANNOT guarantee devo max.

Which is very very different to the SNP's guarantee of indy, of course.

Now I want independence, I don't want devo max ...although I will take that as a second prize ...but the unionist parties are in danger of fucking up on a massive scale because they thought they could blow the whole indy project out of the water by forcing through a Yes/No question.

Yes, Alex had a gun held against his head.

FFS. You voted for a party which promised an indyref and only an indyref. The leader of that party happily accepted just an indyref and only an indyref.

But it's all the fault of those horrible English and Scotland is sophisticated in blaming England for Scotland's choices and Scotland's civic nationalism is going to go very well.