The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

So, for the last few months, yes-ers have been saying "don't believe the suggestion of more devolved powers. If they meant it they'd make a firm promise".

So now there's a firm promise, and yes-ers are still saying "don't believe them".

Anyone might think that yes-ers only have negative campaigning. How did that happen?

[LJS]

A lot of words Neil which boil down to "it's fine for Westminster to lie."

Perhaps that's why I'd prefer not to be governed from there.

Edited August 5, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

So, for the last few months, yes-ers have been saying "don't believe the suggestion of more devolved powers. If they meant it they'd make a firm promise".

So now there's a firm promise, and yes-ers are still saying "don't believe them".

Anyone might think that yes-ers only have negative campaigning. How did that happen?

As I have said before, it's not just - do they want to deliver? It's also - will they be able to deliver? Particularly if they have a small majority?

For me, it makes no odds, I don't want more devolution, I want independence.

Mind you, they could always be lying because according to you, that would be ok!

[eFestivals]

PS ... I actually think they're wrong to talk about more devolved powers before ones already enacted in law have been rolled out to Scotland.

As someone said - a yes-ers, in this very thread - devolution is a process and not an event.

The indyref has said to me that Scotland is a long long way from being emotionally and intellectually ready to handle the full powers of indy.

Building its readiness upwards slowly bit by bit seems the best way to go for those wanting both of just-devolved powers, or full-indy.

As I've said many times, I expect Scotland to be independent sooner or later. When that times comes, it's much better for Scotland if Scotland is ready for it - and Scotland will be more-ready for it by being administrably-closer to that independence.

Alex says this is a one-time opportunity, but we all know that's a lie. If it's a no vote the campaign for the next indyref starts on 19th Sept, and sooner or later it'll happen... but it's most likely to happen for the best for Scotland with an honest approach and not via Salmond's fake jam.

SNP-ers don't care if iScotland succeeds or fails. They don't care what effect their lies have on real people's lives. They only care that there is an iScotland.

Edited August 5, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

A lot of words Neil which boil down to "it's fine for Westminster to lie."

Perhaps that's why I'd prefer not to be governed from there.

No, not that it's "fine".

But it's clear that a lie on this particular basis is for the good of everyone in the country - and that cannot be sensibly disputed within the context of the oil being used by the SNP to trigger people's greed instincts.

Now, please explain what good purpose it serves for all of the people of Scotland for the SNP to claim lie that there's not a single negative consequence for Scotland from indy?

[eFestivals]

As I have said before, it's not just - do they want to deliver? It's also - will they be able to deliver? Particularly if they have a small majority?

given that all three major parties have signed up to it, it can certainly be delivered by those making the promise.

Whether they'll really want to deliver it is another thing entirely, but the same applies to Salmond's CU claims (and much much more too). We know from his history that he doesn't want to deliver CU, but he's promising it anyway.

And further, perhaps the promise of CU is a deliberate lie, being given to con the votes of those who fear a change of currency? Who knows? You don't.

What we do know tho is that Alex cannot deliver that promise no matter how honest he is with that promise.

So you'll vote for a weaker case within 'truth', while rejecting the stronger one. Weird, huh?

Meanwhile, it's impossible for yes-ers to accept the promise of those three parties, else they also have to accept that they'll be no CU - and yes-ers have an aversion to facing facts.

Mind you, they could always be lying because according to you, that would be ok!

Can't you spot the difference between an belief of integrity that Scotland should be independent, and a desire to be greedily rich by claiming something as your own which is not yours?

That sounds like a dreadful situation for iScotland.

[eFestivals]

A lot of words Neil which boil down to "it's fine for Westminster to lie."

Perhaps that's why I'd prefer not to be governed from there.

Oh FFS.

Alex is a model of integrity is he, the world's first honest politician?

You've not listened to a word or the indy debate, not read the white paper, and not read the DIC, have you?

Either that, or you're mightily gullible.

[eFestivals]

I've just made my daily check to see if there's been any new polls released (I know there's one with the debate tonight), and for the first time noticed something with the poll results.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line

Every now and then there's a poll which has a significantly lower "don't know" percentage than the majority of other polls, and those are the ones with weaker 'yes' results.

Having noticed that going on, I've then filtered the results by polling company, to see if it's just one company who is getting that different result, and it's not. It's a spread of them all.

So while there might be questions about any polling company's methodology, one thing that seems to jump out from those polls as a whole is that the undecided are much more prone to be no's than they are yes.

And that's bad news for yes, because they need to convert around 3/4 of those undecided to yes.

So right now indy is a dead duck. Whether tonight debate changes that much we've yet to see, tho my suspicion is that it won't very much (with the yes/no percentages) - but I do expect that a chunk of those currently undecided will jump one way or another off the back of it, tho not with a big enough jump towards yes to much change the yes/no percentages.

[eFestivals]

And I see that those quislings at Fiscal Affairs Scotland have laughed at Salmond's economic predictions for iScotland, basically saying they're impossible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11011844/Scotland-likely-to-be-worse-off-after-independence.html

Which means that an iScotland with increased social justice is very definitely going to be at the price of higher taxes ... which then brings on a further bunch of problems as some of the bigger earners head south as a result.

Meanwhile (in the same Guardian article) Alex's chum and ex-boss of RBS (the man who appointed Fred; great judgement ) says the Scottish banks are barely Scottish and should therefore be rUK banks post-indy ... which is a fair enough conclusion (about the only workable one).

However, no one ever follows thru when making that sensible real-world assessment to pin-point the consequences onto iScotland - which is the instant loss of 5%+ of iScotland's average yearly tax revenue, making iScotland's fiscal position scarily difficult to manage without massive cuts that will make the current tory 'austerity' look like a spendthrift's party.

Still, you get what you vote for. So if you want it, you'll get it.

[eFestivals]

So, what we've discovered so far is that Scots think they can run their own country but they can't stream their TV broadcasts.

[CHRLY]

I ended up getting my stream working at about nine. I hope that if they have another debate it will be broadcast to the whole of the UK.

[brandycoke]

Watched the whole thing ,and don't think Salmond came out of it looking too good.

Rather than focus on the positive,he chose to try and belittle Darling, and it all fell completely flat.

Oh, and he still couldn't give an answer on the pound,even when asked countless times.

[OneLittleFish]

Not even close tonight - big boost for the no campaign.

Future debates will be very interesting.

[eFestivals]

I ended up getting my stream working at about nine. I hope that if they have another debate it will be broadcast to the whole of the UK.

I couldn't get a stream at all for all of the time of the broadcast.

Embarrassingly for the SNP, the other debates will be shown all around the UK - because they're not reliant on a parochial Scottish broadcaster.

A microcosm of the debate?

[eFestivals]

Not even close tonight - big boost for the no campaign.

It's certainly the case that Salmond did far far worse than everyone expected of him.

From online comments, there's plenty of yes-ers who think that Salmond personally killed-off all chances of success last night ... tho there's also plenty of dedicated Nats who insist that Salmond won.

The general conclusion is that Darling won, and that while it might not have been by much that's a massive result because most thought he'd fail badly. And yet it went pretty much how I suggested it might, with Alex having some big vulnerabilities of his own.

There was a poll done by Guardian ICM immediately after the debate, which says* that amongst the undecided that Salmond made the best impression and was seen as the most convincing, but his 'win' with that was far far too tiny to change anything of the outcome.

(* tho I do find it hard to believe. Either people in Scotland are suckers for empty rhetoric, or the pollsters have been gamed I reckon).

Future debates will be very interesting.

I'd say they won't be - at least, not for the outcome of the vote.

If you think back to Dave, Ed & Nick's debates in 2010, Clegg won the first by a margin and then was average in the following debates. But the perception of Clegg was created in that first debate, and the following debates ended up not mattering very much to what people thought.

And further than that, Salmond was on the ropes early on last night - at the point where boredom was going to set in for those who were going to get bored. So a fair few won't have seen Salmond do better towards the end (which, from what i've read, he supposedly did).

Unless Salmond can find the sort of killer blow never yet seen in a UK debate like this I don't think there's any advantage to come for yes from further debate.

So Salmond needs to find something else, and the only something else which will do it will be currency Plan B .... and yet Scottish polling says that any Plan B kills off all chances completely; at least, that's how things were a year ago. From online comments I'd say non-Sterling is far less damaging for yes than it would have been 6 months ago, but whether it can swing the people behind it I'm far less sure.

[LJS]

They were both pretty shite & avoided answering questions but the question on currency that salmond ducked was the most telling. He was well off form & spoke with little conviction.

He also bizarrely started off his cross examination of darling by asking him about driving on the right & alien attacks! Not quite sure what that was about!

Neither delivered a convincing vision of the future they want.

It is frustrating for me that Alex is by default my spokesman. I would have done better!

[brandycoke]

He also bizarrely started off his cross examination of darling by asking him about driving on the right & alien attacks! Not quite sure what that was about!

You forgot the Panda's

[eFestivals]

Neither delivered a convincing vision of the future they want.

and yet it's only Salmond that has to deliver any vision.

He's the one that's pushing for change, so he has to demonstrate the change is worthwhile to the people who might support it.

And he failed dismally. He showed that he doesn't even have a plan, only keeping his fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

It is frustrating for me that Alex is by default my spokesman. I would have done better!

As I keep telling you and you keep trying to swerve, your vote for yes is an endorsement of all of Salmond's indy plans - because that's the only plan on offer, and it's Salmond (and only Salmond) that has all control of the process, despite him being elected by a minority (which is 100% Westminster-like).

He's even written a 17 page document to categorically state that only he is in control of the process .... and still you won't accept that only he is in control of the process.

Your vote grants all power to Salmond and only Salmond, and from that empowers Scottish politicians to exercise all power over the people of Scotland. It's Westminster Mk2.

And everything about the vote is outside of the democratic principles laid out in the Vienna Convention (and others)... just take a peek at the conditions that got forced onto Macedonia by the EU to comply with those conventions, so that Macedonia would be an acceptable sovereign state to then become an EU member, if/when accepted. And so far it's not accepted, because while it has a central bank it's not a meaningful central bank, an absolute requirement for EU membership.

Edited August 6, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You forgot the Panda's

who count up as significantly fewer than the one in five Scots who are tories, despite the amusing line that Nats use.

[russycarps]

Embarrassing stuff from Salmond as per usual.

[t8yman]

FWIW, and I'm obviously not an expert on these matters, I was talking with my Father In Law and Brother In Law the other week (both Glaswegians) and both of them said they don't know a single person who is voting yes. And they know a shitload of people through their football teams, work etc.

I know its only an anecdotal illustration, but was interesting to hear their (what I would count as "fairly typical man on the street") views were.

I've said it before, I hope the no vote wins, but I do see the importance of asking the people.

[eFestivals]

There's also loads of people who say they don't know anyone voting no.

I'm guessing that many Scots give the answer that they think aligns with who is asking the question, as a way of avoiding verbal conflict.

The yes-ers translate this into a yes win, and the no-ers translate it into a no win.

The yes-ers also like to suggest that the polls will be hugely wrong, based on ... a Nat myth that the polls were hugely wrong in 2011 for the SG election. But it's not true, the final polls from the more-respected pollsters had the voting percentages almost spot-on, and it was merely how that translated into seats for each party that they got so wrong (as that's dependent on where exactly a vote was cast, that's not so surprising. They'd have needed representative samples in every constituency to get that right).

It's difficult to see from the polls what the result will be, but my strong suspicion is that the 'traditional' polling companies (MORI, YouGov, etc) will be much nearer being correct than those polling companies with less experience and less historical data to model indyref polling intentions against.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say I suspect the victory for 'no' will be by a greater margin than those polls suggest (as long as there's no 'game changer' that happens within the next 6 weeks).

[brandycoke]

. He showed that he doesn't even have a plan, only keeping his fingers crossed and hoping for the best.

Tht's not strictly true, he does have a plan, its just that it's hugely flawed.

[brandycoke]

A bit of bollocks on a fag packet doesn't make a plan

Ten fag packet too

[eFestivals]

There's a lot of online comment in the tone of this one....

It's lucky that the Yes campaign is a grassroots one, and doesn't depend on the performance of one man on the nation's telescreens.

Does anyone think the comments from yes-ers would have been the same if Salmond had performed in the way they'd been expecting?

The simple fact is that this particular version of independence DOES depend on the performance of just one man. He has to perform perfectly in every aspect for iScotland to have the slightest hope of attaining his promises in the white paper, and surely even the most raving Nat doesn't credit him with that level of perfection?

Edited August 6, 2014 by eFestivals