The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I`m as sure as I can be that the performances and effort put in by Patrick Harvie up and down the country during the last 2 years will be rewarded when we get the chance to give the Green`s a bigger say.

You are clearly right, membership of Scottish Greens is up more in percentage terms than SNP - although obviously from a smaller base - my amazing 17 year old daughter has joined, I would imagine I will join in the next few days as it's really between them & the SNP if you have a brain & a conscience in Scotland (oops SSP too) sadly for them, the next election is Westminster & the combination of FPTP and a desire to give Scottish labour a good (& thoroughly deserved) kicking will probably result in a derisory % for the greens. As my constituency is a SNP/Labour fight I would imagine I will vote SNP.

[eFestivals]

Oh dear. So should the people of Scotland continue to vote for the SNP Govt, a Govt widely accepted as making a good fist of things up here then your take on that would be that we are only doing so to contribute to a Tory victory ?

Eh? My comment was specifically about Westminster elections.

What a bizarre and disrespectful thing to say ?

It's your words that are that. Not mine.

I remember you saying how Dave couldn`t win the next GE

that's certainly what opinion polling to-date has been saying.

But if Scotland moves the goalposts with that by giving Labour 40-ish less MPs, then that changes things, doesn't it?

Scotland is allowed to make that choice, but all choices come with consequences, and not all consequences are good.

Pleasingly, some poll data I've seen that i believe was taken on Friday (tho perhaps I am mistaken, and it was instead published on Friday) showed that Labour support has barely moved in Scotland, tho most of the LibDem votes are likely to go to the SNP.

I see today that the SNP is now the UK`s 3rd biggest party.

with members, not electoral support. They're different things, with no generic link between the two.

And how well any new support actually holds up in the longer term we've yet to see.

I doubt you will ever be able to bring yourself to recognise the fact that the majority of working age folks in Scotland do not wish to be part of the Westminster establishment anymore. Some would say the dream shall never die

I suggest that you go find yourself some bigger and better polling data than Ashcroft's, where you'll get to find out that you're wrong.

It was only the 24-45 age group that was majority for yes.

Edited September 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just reading about Tesco being investigated by the serious fraud office ! Surely some mistake. Every word they say should be treated as gospel ?

it certainly was by yes-ers when Tesco said prices wouldn't rise.

Then again, Tesco is up shit creek and can't lose more customers. Perhaps that had something to do with their words? You know, them wanting your money.

Back in the real world where an indy Scotland would have a Tesco (Scotland) Ltd that was run financially independent of Tesco (rUK) Ltd, the very facts of Scotland would see the prices rise.

[eFestivals]

Think we had the link to the live debt bomb on here a few times. Best of both worlds is what we voted to come back to ! Here`s another opinion. Lots of other opinions are, as we know, available.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/george-kerevan-uk-economy-is-a-ticking-time-bomb-1-3550780

it's such a ticking time bomb that an independent Scotland was mindnumbingly desperate to be economically wedded to it forever?

The UK has many problems. The sensible nats know that imminent total meltdown of the UK is not one of them.

Edited September 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Just a brief comment as this thread is in its death throes

I couldn't resist this as a perfect example of Neil's debating technique

LJS, on 23 Sept 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

your reply..."Yep, that's the yes-er's narrative - that anyone who disagreed with them was a tory. ;)"

Now absolutely nothing in what I said suggests anyone is a Tory. But then its much easier to answer the allegation (which I didn''t make) of being a Tory, than it is to address the actual point I was making.

Oh FFS.

You tried to suggest that no-ers were sucking up stuff on the basis of it's right-winger-ness.

The reality was that I was referencing the facts. Get over it.

You know, like the Scottish Govts own data that says only in 6 years of the last 25 has Scotland had a lesser deficit than the UK average. The facts that you rejected on the basis that you couldn't understand in the briefest moment you looked at them.

(Did you see this data in any newspaper? I didn't! Neither did I see anything about the jokes within the DIC - no sovereignty for Scottish people, and all total power to politicians just like with WM).

Facts like the banks would head south due to their own commercial necessity, that was a will-never-happen scenario in 75%+ of yes-ers opinions.

You then waffle on, but you've not even tried to substantiate the claim you'd made in your more recent posts that i'd asked you to provide evidence of. There's a reason for that, isn't there?

I get that you're not a fan of my debating style. I'm not much of fan of yours either, where you swerve anything awkward - and that swerving does cause me to then sometimes ridicule, or make assumptions on the reason why you've swerved (it hardly takes a genius to get them right on many occasions). A debate takes two.

Edited September 25, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Well, it's taken them 5 days, but credit (finally) to WoS for rebuffing the fraud allegations.

It's a shame that the ethnic-not-civic Rev couldn't bring himself to post the same. Then again, I doubt he saw the count as he shouldn't have had a vote (not sure if he actually did or not).

Still, the meltdown going on over there now as even WoS 'betray' the fantasists is very amusing. It's well worth a read.

[eFestivals]

FYI, LJS, I tended not to read the newspaper articles that I'd read the comments of - because there was much more useful info coming from the comments - from those on both sides.

It was via doing this which I came acorss a wealth of facts and figures - ofrten the Scottish Govts own - which often disproved the Yes campaigns own claims of things within Scotland.

I also turned my brain on, so that I didn't stop thinking after reading six grand words at the start of the DIC. Via thinking, I discovered that,

1. in iScotland the people would not be sovereign. Politicans would be.

2. that post-indy, Scottish citizenship became ethnic and not civic.

3. that post-indy, EU citizens would lose their rights to vote in SG elections.

(I think there was other stuff too; too long ago now).

None of these things came from newspaper articles, from the tories, or anyone else. They came from paying full attention.

Perhaps try it next time around? There's more to this decision lark than waving a flag.

BTW, your countrymen are asking for it back now. Isn't that something you recently ribbed me for in England?

[LJS]

[LJS]

FYI, LJS, I tended not to read the newspaper articles that I'd read the comments of - because there was much more useful info coming from the comments - from those on both sides.

It was via doing this which I came acorss a wealth of facts and figures - ofrten the Scottish Govts own - which often disproved the Yes campaigns own claims of things within Scotland.

I also turned my brain on, so that I didn't stop thinking after reading six grand words at the start of the DIC. Via thinking, I discovered that,

1. in iScotland the people would not be sovereign. Politicans would be.

2. that post-indy, Scottish citizenship became ethnic and not civic.

3. that post-indy, EU citizens would lose their rights to vote in SG elections.

(I think there was other stuff too; too long ago now).

None of these things came from newspaper articles, from the tories, or anyone else. They came from paying full attention.

Perhaps try it next time around? There's more to this decision lark than waving a flag.

BTW, your countrymen are asking for it back now. Isn't that something you recently ribbed me for in England?

My comment was more about the nature of the campaign grassroots, inclusive, civic not ethnic which was one area where us guys in Scotland could genuinely claim more expertise than you guys in various other parts of the UK.

I am amused that you counter my argument that you paid too much attention to the mainstream press but instead sourced much of your stuff from below the line comments. Well if you believe that is the place to find a more balanced and rational view, you have a different view form me. I have said before that I rarely venture into these place because they clearly have a dangerously high maniac count.

It would certainly explain the occasions on which you were unable or unwilling to supply links. I can understand why you omitted to mention the source of this stuff and am frankly astonished that you has the brass neck to rubbish the credentials of any "expert" I quoted from when your experts were swimming with the turds in the ocean of nutters.

if there were occasion, I didn't reply to your every last point, I am now glad I didn't waste my time.

On a broader & less confrontational note, you are well aware that my support of Independence was not founded on an expectation of wealth - I had other issues which motivated me more than economics, so you will perhaps understand why your endless barrage of statistics, all predicting some degree of Armageddon for Scotland, failed to hold my attention for very long. I had read enough early on, to satisfy myself that, on the balance of probability, Scotland wouldn't be massively better or worse off (financially) & as we were talking about the future, neither of us could ever be proved right (except in the event of a Yes vote)

Anyway we din't get a Yes vote so that argument has moved on, for the time being. I now have little or no interest in speculating about whether iScotland would have worked. My interest (as it always has been) is on the future and what part I can play in it. I believe Scotland has an amazing opportunity to try & make something of the unprecedented level of engagement from the public- few is any predicted that a referendum defeat would result in the more than doubling & showing no sign of stopping) in membership of the 3 Yes parties. I am heartened that the SNP is participating in the process of agreeing Scotland's new powers. I believe Tory & Labour Parties will try water down their promises at their peril. The promises may have been short on detail but it was very clear indeed that substantial change was being promised

"Gordon Brown said: 'The plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing short of a modern form of Scottish home rule within the UK'.

"He is also quoted as saying: 'We are going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population'.

"Danny Alexander said: 'Scotland will have more power over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system - effective home rule but within the security and stability of our successful UK.'

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/john-swinney-gordon-browns-vision-4317916

What happens if they fail to agree, or a large proportion of Scottish voters feel short-changed? Who knows? But as I've said before, Labour are the one's who stand to lose the most...

Finally just a comment on the anti English & anti foreigners in general sentiment you claim to have detected, I am not in the slightest surprised to hear that now I know the company you have been keeping. If you visit a septic tank, you will meet shits.

Up here in the real world, in the fresh air & autumn sunshine, I will repeat I have been unaware of any such sentiments (bar one as previously mentioned). If we have this bitter streak of ethnic nationalism, surely faced with polls which suggest Scottish born voters voted in favour (albeit by the narrowest of margins) , we would now be extracting our revenge against the foreign scum who betrayed us? Funnily enough, it just ain't happening. Now, why could that be?

[Comfy Bean]

Just trying to have a look at the new super powers we may or may not get. Hope someone can help me out with this. No hidden point here just looking for a wee bit assistance. We know that we got more of a timetable than a list but I`m trying to establish what the powers could involve re tax and revenue ?

I can see that the talk is of raising tax but there is no mention of power to lower tax ( not talking corp tax here ) I mean for example the power to lift folk out of tax who are on low earnings. Would the Scottish Govt be able to do that ?

Also, what about the oil receipts ? We know it`s a diminishing resource etc so why not allow the Scottish Govt control over all tax and revenue generated within Scotland. This could allow the SNP to have a proper go at running Scotland and remove all the Barnett questions. In return our MP`s don`t vote on English matters and everyones a winner ( apart from Ed maybe ). The debt and things like defence spending could be agreed during the negotiation on the new powers.

[Comfy Bean]

Eh? My comment was specifically about Westminster elections.

Apologies if I misunderstood your point. My mistake. My point then put another way is : Scotland will NOT vote Tory in the next GE. England might ( I think they will, at the moment you think they wont ). If England does vote Tory you cannot pin it on " us ". Of course any loss of Labour seats in Scotland will be relevant but the choice will have been made by your countrymen not mine

It's your words that are that. Not mine.

that's certainly what opinion polling to-date has been saying.

But if Scotland moves the goalposts with that by giving Labour 40-ish less MPs, then that changes things, doesn't it?

Scotland is allowed to make that choice, but all choices come with consequences, and not all consequences are good.

Pleasingly, some poll data I've seen that i believe was taken on Friday (tho perhaps I am mistaken, and it was instead published on Friday) showed that Labour support has barely moved in Scotland, tho most of the LibDem votes are likely to go to the SNP.

I`m comfortable with my opinion that with the over 65`s removed Scotland would not have returned to rUK. I understand that it is difficult to prove this as a matter of fact. I take it you disagree ?

with members, not electoral support. They're different things, with no generic link between the two.

I know they are different but thanks !! I was talking about members.

And how well any new support actually holds up in the longer term we've yet to see.

Agreed. I know of a few NO voters who are getting a bit uneasy about the whole " timetable " thing. I also know a few NO voters who`s decision was not affected by the VOW.

I suggest that you go find yourself some bigger and better polling data than Ashcroft's, where you'll get to find out that you're wrong.It was only the 24-45 age group that was majority for yes.

So the polls that I took some interest in are shite but the polls that you refer to are 100% accurate and cannot be questioned.Yeah......I see my mistake there !

[Comfy Bean]

OFF TOPIC ALERT !

Neil - new tent got delivered today. Thanks again for the link mate. Half price and free delivery

[LJS]

Neil is talking about the two referendum day polls - from Ashcroft & You Gov - I take it the Ashcroft one was out first & it is the won that led to "it was the old wot done it & also where the 71% yes among young folk came for. The YouGov poll paints a slightly different picture, but as always these things can be spun whichever way you want

Here is how the Herald spun it:

Full indyref survey reveals young voters voted No and only 25-39 age group said Yes Their study of 3,188 voters showed that 51 per cent of those aged between 16 and 24 voted No. It also revealed that more than one in five SNP supporters turned their backs on independence.The breakdown has come from YouGov's referendum night poll that predicted a No win with 54 per cent of the vote. Some 55.3 per cent voted against independence in the official vote.A post-referendum poll of 2,000 conducted by Lord Ashcroft said that 71 per cent of 16-17-year-olds and 48 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted Yes giving ammunition to Yes supporters that the young were being deprived of an independent Scotland by their older peers.However, only 14 people in that age group responded to the survey.The YouGov poll found:l Only eight per cent of Tory voters supported independence while 27 per cent of Labour supporters and 29 per cent of Liberal Democrats said Yes.l Out of five age groups only the 25-39-year-olds supported a Yes with 55 per cent backing independence.l The biggest supporters of No were voters over 65, with two in every three preferring to stay within the United Kingdom.l Some 55 per cent of 60-65-year-olds and 53 per cent of 40-59-year-olds backed Better Together.A total of 74 per cent of those voters who were born elsewhere in the UK voted No. Some 51 per cent of Scots-born voters supported independence.

meanwhile for another interpretation here is Scotland goes pop "I've been asked by a number of people to have a look at the YouGov exit poll, in the light of the Herald's provocatively-worded claim that it shows "the elderly did not rob the young of an independent Scotland". In fact, it shows no such thing, and instead bears out Alex Salmond's claim that under-55s voted Yes. It's not possible to make a direct comparison with the Ashcroft exit poll, because YouGov use different age categories, but here is the nearest comparison possible -

How under-55s voted, according to the Ashcroft exit poll :

Yes 54%
No 46%

How under-60s voted, according to the YouGov exit poll :

Yes 50%
No 50%

So in order to believe that Yes did not also enjoy a lead among under-55s in the YouGov poll, you'd have to argue that 55-59 year olds broke for Yes, which seems highly improbable.

Of course the two polls show very different pictures in individual age groups, but you'd expect that due to normal sampling variation. By extension that means we'll never be 100% certain that under-55s voted Yes, "

For what its worth, in my opinion , all these figures show, is that you can spin things both ways - neither are untrue (assuming they got their sums right)

Apologies for some reason my little quote boxes went all skew whiff tonight to this post is a bit messy

[LJS]

Scotsman pays out £6000 to Wings Over Scotland editor after article

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/293478-scotsman-pays-out-6000-to-wings-over-scotland-editor-over-article/

[eFestivals]

I am amused that you counter my argument that you paid too much attention to the mainstream press but instead sourced much of your stuff from below the line comments. Well if you believe that is the place to find a more balanced and rational view, you have a different view form me. I have said before that I rarely venture into these place because they clearly have a dangerously high maniac count.

As I've said many times, it was the high comedy value of those maniacs that had me reading things about indy in the first place.

But that doesn't mean there were only nutters. As i've said, i discovered a lot - things which passed you and most Scots by, whilst nothing from the mainstream press did.

So knock me reading those maniacs if you like, when your method left you short of the facts and my method did not.

It would certainly explain the occasions on which you were unable or unwilling to supply links.

Who's making the whopping assumptions now?

I read for my own pleasure, not to act as educationalist. Given that it was your vote and not mine, don't blame me for your own failings.

I didn't collect links as I read. I had little interest in spending perhaps hours* trying to re-find what i'd read to enable you to get up to speed. Remember, I was not a campaigner, I was an interested observer, interested for my own reasons and not your reasons.

* I did spend many hours last week or the week before tracking down some stuff, just for you - and then you rejected it on the basis that you didn't wish to spend more than 10 seconds trying to understand Scotland's financial position as stated by Salmond himself.

Instead you decided it was wrong without bothering to understand it.

I can understand why you omitted to mention the source of this stuff and am frankly astonished that you has the brass neck to rubbish the credentials of any "expert" I quoted from when your experts were swimming with the turds in the ocean of nutters.

.... I still am, by the look of things.

If you think the "experts" i was going with were those btl nutters, I'd have been saying that it was the English who had ruined Scotland, that all problems in Scotland were caused by the English, that anyone who voted no was a traitor, and that no true Scotsman could vote yes; or alternatively, I'd have been encouraging Scotland to follow your wish w3hile laughing loudly.

Instead I found links to real facts and figures. That you rejected because they hadn't been endorsed by WoS and read by you on WoS.

if there were occasion, I didn't reply to your every last point, I am now glad I didn't waste my time.

And flag waving and cheering was a better use of time than understanding the state of your country by facts - facts often published at Salmond's behest (which can't be dismissed as "unionist lies")?

On a broader & less confrontational note, you are well aware that my support of Independence was not founded on an expectation of wealth - I had other issues which motivated me more than economics, so you will perhaps understand why your endless barrage of statistics, all predicting some degree of Armageddon for Scotland, failed to hold my attention for very long. I had read enough early on, to satisfy myself that, on the balance of probability, Scotland wouldn't be massively better or worse off (financially) & as we were talking about the future, neither of us could ever be proved right (except in the event of a Yes vote)

And yet you'd not read enough to know that for only 6 years of the last 25 years had Scotland had a lesser deficit than the UK, to even know the first thing about it.

Here's betting you still don't accept that fact that was provided by the Scottish Govt using (biased towards Scotland) criteria set by the SNP.

My interest (as it always has been) is on the future and what part I can play in it. I believe Scotland has an amazing opportunity to try & make something of the unprecedented level of engagement from the public-

It does. But how exactly is that new engagement playing out?

Are those people now looking forwards to having new powers and using them constructively for the benefit of everyone in Scotland?

Or are those people looking to use any new powers against the people of Scotland to try and engineer greater support for indy in the future?

Given that the SNP-voting public has had 7 years of training in the 2nd method, and give the words I'm reading everywhere from both Scottish politicians and Scottish public I know which way it's going to go.

Tho sadly - for both our viewpoints - you won't get what you want and I won't get what I want. And the people of Scotland will suffer much more than anyone but the SNP wants.

What happens if they fail to agree, or a large proportion of Scottish voters feel short-changed?

The second part is answered by the first.

It's guaranteed that a large proportion of Scottish voters will feel short-changed, because they've not paid attention to know how much change they should be getting.

Mostly they don't even know that there's no need for the 3 main parties to agree about anything apart from each having an offer for Scotland.

Those three parties have not agreed to agree on policy. They have agreed to agree on a timetable for the presentation of policies - and nothing more than that.

It's then up to the people of Scotland to support (or not) those policies thru the ballot box.

(Amusingly, for someone with your views, that should have you voting tory as they're offering Scotland the greatest powers ).

Finally just a comment on the anti English & anti foreigners in general sentiment you claim to have detected, I am not in the slightest surprised to hear that now I know the company you have been keeping. If you visit a septic tank, you will meet shits.

Cos there's none of that on WoS, is there?

Or at "the 45"?

Or in all Scottish newspapers?

Or even from members of the Scottish Govt?

And the opinion I've formed has less to do with the comments themselves, and much much more to do with the responses to them - so muted in criticism from the yes side that what there has really been is open acceptance of them.

Up here in the real world, in the fresh air & autumn sunshine, I will repeat I have been unaware of any such sentiments (bar one as previously mentioned). If we have this bitter streak of ethnic nationalism, surely faced with polls which suggest Scottish born voters voted in favour (albeit by the narrowest of margins) , we would now be extracting our revenge against the foreign scum who betrayed us? Funnily enough, it just ain't happening. Now, why could that be?

if you took the time to find out how opinions might be outside of your own personal bubble, you'll already know that there's been countless calls for any future indyref to work via different rules where foreign nationals and the English born are denied a vote in Scotland.

I'm not pretending it's a majority voice within yes-ers, but it's a loud voice and a voice that is only rarely challenged.

Meanwhile, rightly or wrongly, you're of the opinion that England is full of UKIP lovers - to the extent that (as far as I recall) you've even posted that you think a tory/UKIP coalition is on the cards* after June 2015. Given that no mainstream media was reporting that 9they were reporting the opposite), where exactly do you pick up that wrong view?

(* who knows, it might even be now; the chances are certainly increasing by you saying Scotland will reject Labour and so impose the tories onto itself. But that wasn't the situation at the time of those words)

One of the major rationals for why Scotland should be indie was said as "Scotland doesn't get the govt it votes for". If you vote tartan tory for Westminster you'll very likely get tory rule of Scotland when different choices could give you something more to your liking. If you cannot see the deliberate self-destructiveness of that then there is no rational to any independence argument from the yes side.

[eFestivals]

Just trying to have a look at the new super powers we may or may not get. Hope someone can help me out with this. No hidden point here just looking for a wee bit assistance. We know that we got more of a timetable than a list but I`m trying to establish what the powers could involve re tax and revenue ?

I can see that the talk is of raising tax but there is no mention of power to lower tax ( not talking corp tax here ) I mean for example the power to lift folk out of tax who are on low earnings. Would the Scottish Govt be able to do that ?

I've not looked at the offers in detail (they're not of a lot of interest to me in England), but as I understand it, Labour are against Scotland being able to set lower tax rates than rUK but are ab;le to set higher tax rates so that Scotland can spend more on public services as has long been the claim in Scotland of what they wish to do (but won't actually do).

The tories are offering Scotland the most powers, I believe (certainly more than Labour, anyway. I have little idea of what the Libdems are offering), which includes powers over more taxes, and the ability for them to go both up or down.

What Scotland won't get of course is these powers and a same-size block grant. The fantasy-land yes-ers expect all the powers plus all of the same money as now, which is laughable.

(I suspect that many thought they'd get that with indy too, such were the huge delusions of some).

Also, what about the oil receipts ? We know it`s a diminishing resource etc so why not allow the Scottish Govt control over all tax and revenue generated within Scotland.

The oil revenue extraction taxes are something special and unique outside of the 'normal' tax regime, so I'm guessing that the money from them is being treated as something special too - and not being handed over.

Given that Scotland is demanding that it keeps the financial privileges it already has (thru Barnett, and more), then I find it difficult to see how it can asking to do that without something being given in return - and the oil money is probably the thing to do that by - a 'special' resource for 'special' financial privileges.

Don't be too quick to knock that. Scotland would *certainly* be worse off on average if it lost its current financial privileges but got the oil revenues (as that 35 year GERS/SNAP spreadsheet gets to prove).

This could allow the SNP to have a proper go at running Scotland and remove all the Barnett questions. In return our MP`s don`t vote on English matters and everyones a winner ( apart from Ed maybe ). The debt and things like defence spending could be agreed during the negotiation on the new powers.

Scotland would not be a winner. It would have less revenue to spend on services.

Scotland has just rejected being financially independent as doing that would as-good-as make it be.

[eFestivals]

Apologies if I misunderstood your point. My mistake. My point then put another way is : Scotland will NOT vote Tory in the next GE. England might ( I think they will, at the moment you think they wont ). If England does vote Tory you cannot pin it on " us ". Of course any loss of Labour seats in Scotland will be relevant but the choice will have been made by your countrymen not mine

The UK election is a UK election - we're all countrymen together and we all get the govt we decide together. No matter how much anyone might want to stamp their feet and think of Scotland as different and separate, it's not in a UK election scenario.

We all know how the current seats lie, and how if the 'normal' patterns are followed Labour should be heading for victory.

(tho, off the back of what has happened in Scotland, things have changed - changes that Scotland has caused that has strengthened the tories. Even the tory support within Scotland is on the rise according to polling done last Friday!).

If Scotland decides to change how it votes then that is hugely likely to change the outcome. That's a very simple fact that cannot be got away from.

Scotland says it doesn't want a tory govt. If Scotland's choice of voting helps bring one about then Scotland has acted against it's own stated interests. It's stupid to pretend otherwise.

Yes, tory support in England is greater than it is in Scotland; there's fuck all you or me can do to change that. The only power we each have is with our own vote - use it wisely!!

I`m comfortable with my opinion that with the over 65`s removed Scotland would not have returned to rUK. I understand that it is difficult to prove this as a matter of fact. I take it you disagree ?

Facts are such inconvenient things.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/referendum-survey-suggests-a-slender-majority-of-young-people-voted-no.25407723

There was an Ashcroft poll which suggested that 70(ish)% of 16 & 17 yo's voted yes - but it had a sample size of just 12 (or was it 14? Too small to be meaningful, anyway). The YouGov poll that article is about has a much bigger sample, and should be taken as 'fact' above that Ashcroft poll.

I realise these are only opinion polls, but they're the only indicators we've got for this.

Agreed. I know of a few NO voters who are getting a bit uneasy about the whole " timetable " thing. I also know a few NO voters who`s decision was not affected by the VOW.

There's very little to suggest that the vow had any meaningful impact on the result.

One of the more ridiculous things put forwards by many yes-ers in the last week is that more people would have voted yes rather than no if the 'vow' had been made before they'd sent off their postal votes. The reality is is hugely more likely to be the opposite of that.

So the polls that I took some interest in are shite but the polls that you refer to are 100% accurate and cannot be questioned.Yeah......I see my mistake there !

- I'm not saying that at all. See above.

Some poll data is better than other poll data. The Ashcroft poll data for 16/17yo's is much too small a sample to be taken as accurate when much better data is available via other polls.

[eFestivals]

Neil is talking about the two referendum day polls - from Ashcroft & You Gov - I take it the Ashcroft one was out first & it is the won that led to "it was the old wot done it & also where the 71% yes among young folk came for. The YouGov poll paints a slightly different picture, but as always these things can be spun whichever way you want

When the Ashcroft poll of 16/17 year olds was only 12 or 14 individuals*, it's not "spin" to dismiss it as inaccurate against polls with much better data.

(* I forget which of these two numbers it was, but it was definitely one of them).

[LJS]

When the Ashcroft poll of 16/17 year olds was only 12 or 14 individuals*, it's not "spin" to dismiss it as inaccurate against polls with much better data.

(* I forget which of these two numbers it was, but it was definitely one of them).

it was 14. the total Ashcroft poll size was a bit over 2000 & youGov a bit over 3,000, YouGov had 200+ but had the much wider age range of 16-24 which split 51/49 to "No" so it is genuinely difficult top make any sort of meaningful comparison, there. I certainly wouldn't be making any assumption on a sample of 14. The two conclusions that seem most sensible to draw from this are that the rich & the old were the main groups who won it for "No"

(I use the term rich very loosely, so don't bother pulling me up on it!) The old were either scared into voting no by unscrupulous scaremongering about losing their pensions or sensibly concerned that the value of their pensions would be threatened by independence. I see no need to revisit the debate as to which of these versions is correct.

Of course, there were other factors - the old tend to be more likely to view themselves as British, and are much more dependent on main stream media for their information.

As for me ignoring the helpful info you provided towards the end of the campaign. I do recall there was one day you produced post after post after post full of numbers. As you were aware at that time my focus was on speaking to undecided & wavering voters and I certainly was not going to devote the hours that would have been needed to look into these stats - maybe a few months earlier, I would have.

There's very little to suggest that the vow had any meaningful impact on the result.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comment. Are you implying we can only hold politician's to promises if our vote was swayed by these promises?

As regards whether we should or shouldn't vote Labour, two points.

firstly - even if we return no labour mp's at all this will not make a Tory government with an overall majority any more likely, unless we happen to elect more Tories, of course.

Secondly, I have often voted tactically in the past, although in fairness, it has often been pointless as for much of my life I have lived in foregone conclusion constituencies. But there have always been parties that I would not vote for under any circumstances. That used to be the Tories & any far right parties. Labour has now joined that list, or to be more accurate it has left my list of parties it is acceptable to vote for. I don't really see the problem though. A Labour Tory coalition seems the logical answer. Labour might have to compromise a bit as they now seem to want to vilify benefit claimants more than the Tories, but hey that's what coalition is all about.

[eFestivals]

The two conclusions that seem most sensible to draw from this are that the rich & the old were the main groups who won it for "No"

and also that yes wasn't too appealing to any group.

Everywhere I read, yes-ers tend to forget that part of things.

Of course, there were other factors - the old tend to be more likely to view themselves as British

Utter bullshit, as that social attitudes survey I linked to within the last few weeks shows.

It's the younger generations who are abandoning the idea of Scottishness. It's probably the case that everything around the indyref has reversed that at the moment (I'm guessing, given it was a vote around a nationalist idea), tho I doubt that reversal is something that will last.

The very facts of modern life make nationalism an obsolete idea in many ways.

and are much more dependent on main stream media for their information.

True, but you say that like the alternatives are something better, and a good thing.

You only have to see the nuttiness stirred up post-vote by social media around the idea of 'election fraud' to see how empty the alternatives are. Or the very deliberate choices to lie by WoS, and the mass-delusions that surrounded what WoS claimed as fact.

As for me ignoring the helpful info you provided towards the end of the campaign. I do recall there was one day you produced post after post after post full of numbers. As you were aware at that time my focus was on speaking to undecided & wavering voters and I certainly was not going to devote the hours that would have been needed to look into these stats - maybe a few months earlier, I would have.

I had said what exactly needed to be looked at and compared (the last column of the last two tabs). Those give the percentage deficit for both of Scotland and whole-UK - and where the Scottish percentage is negatively greater the Scottish deficit is worse than it is for whole-UK.

If you couldn't spend the 30 seconds required to do that it was because you would rather avoid the inconvenient.

You could go and do it now, when you're not so rushed for time. And then next time the indyref comes around (as it surely will, see Quebec yet again) you'll be well-informed and able to properly reject with true facts claims that Scotland will be better off under indy, won't you?

But we both know you won't do that.

You WANT to go along with the false facts, because you like the idea of the destination you're hoping to arrive at. This was a huge part of the yes-ers groundswell of support.

The unfortunate fact that comes with that is that you'll never arrive at that fantasy destination even if Scotland goes indy, because that would also require the fantasy of Scotland being more wealthy to stack up.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comment. Are you implying we can only hold politician's to promises if our vote was swayed by these promises?

Not at all. They made those promises, they should deliver on them.

I was commenting on the yes-ers narrative that the 'vow' somehow conned the postal voters who had already voted when the 'vow' was made. That yes-ers narrative only holds up if the 'vow' would have had no voters changing to yes - which it would not have done for more than the smallest handful (if any at all).

As regards whether we should or shouldn't vote Labour, two points.

firstly - even if we return no labour mp's at all this will not make a Tory government with an overall majority any more likely, unless we happen to elect more Tories, of course.

I see maths isn't your strong point.

Or reality, come to that.

Secondly, I have often voted tactically in the past, although in fairness, it has often been pointless as for much of my life I have lived in foregone conclusion constituencies. But there have always been parties that I would not vote for under any circumstances. That used to be the Tories & any far right parties. Labour has now joined that list, or to be more accurate it has left my list of parties it is acceptable to vote for. I don't really see the problem though. A Labour Tory coalition seems the logical answer. Labour might have to compromise a bit as they now seem to want to vilify benefit claimants more than the Tories, but hey that's what coalition is all about.

So you could recognise the benefits that tactical voting can help deliver in the past, but you're not able to recognise the benefits it could deliver now?

----

UKIP are back in the news, and I'm back to reading the nutty UKIP comments - and so so much is so so identical to the SNP support.

In both cases, the support comes from the huge disillusionment with the 'traditional' parties, which is causing those disillusioned to look to the next biggest political movement.

In both cases, the actual facts of things seems to matter very little to those 'new' supporters.

In both cases, the surge in memberships comes following sudden bigger electoral success, and not prior to it. It's about being on whayt they believe will be the winning team, rather than a strict political affinity to that potential winning team.

Because those new supporters are disillusioned, they will accept nothing claimed by those trad parties, and will instead accept claims for their 'new' party just on the basis that it's not being said by those old parties.

Supporters of both parties can find words from those parties they can support and so they support those parties - tho they find those words they can support because those parties are being all things to all men in their grand speeches.

While having no way to deliver all things to all men with policies.

The new supporters pretend not to hear the 'bad' policies - for the SNP it was the neoliberal tax cuts for the rich that the majority of its supporters pretended not to hear because of it's clear conflict with their "we want more social justice" claims. It's all ignored for a blind-faith belief in some new empowerment.

For UKIP's supposed-left-leaning supporters, they don't hear the discrimination, the Thatcherite economics, etc. It's all ignored for a blind-faith belief in some new empowerment.

The amount of similarity is massive, even tho the polices vary. Tho actually, the policies (the real ones) vary much less than you might think. Neoliberals are neoliberals together. Tinkering at the edges keeps things to the same basic neoliberal agenda.

Edited September 27, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I give up

I voted yes without giving any consideration to the consequesnces - just swallowed hook line & sinker the lies of the Evil Salmond.

I wilfully ignored every attempt from Neil to show me the error of my ways.#

Made up the stuff about older people being more British.

Invented the mathematical fact that as long as Scotland returns a single Tory the make up of the other parties in Scotland does not affect whether the Tories gain an OVERALL majority.

Am blind to the clear fact that UKIP & SNP are virtually identical.

Am perversely refusing to vote for a party who I despise even though Neil says I should.

You win, Neil.

I have been a naive fool:(

[eFestivals]

did I say all of those things specifically applied to you? Are you of the belief that everyone who voted yes thinks in an identical way to you?

Or is it possible that there's more to everything 'yes' than you?

Made up the stuff about older people being more British.

if that's the case, why is the number of people who feel distinctly Scottish (rather than British) reducing over time (as the social attitudes surveys prove to be the case)?

Surely people in Scotland feel more British and less Scottish over time because those who feel distinctly Scottish are dying out and not being replaced from within the younger generations?

You're welcome to think differently, but a reason for why you have a view that seems contrary to those surveys would be good to hear.

Assertions without a supporting reason are just hot air. Flesh out what you say, and make it stand up!!!

Invented the mathematical fact that as long as Scotland returns a single Tory the make up of the other parties in Scotland does not affect whether the Tories gain an OVERALL majority.

No person's vote exists in isolation from all other people's votes.

It's the precise reason why people have learned to use their vote tactically in a FPTP system.

If Scotland does as you do, it will quite possibly cause the tories to be the largest party, which will cause you and the rest of Scotland to suffer a tory goivt when you'd rather have a govt of just about every other party (from what you've posted previously).

I'll remind you that you started off claiming that you were supporting yes to stop Scotland getting tory govts, and not to then end up helping Scotland to get a tory govt.

It's your choice, and your consequences.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Yes-ers cannot bring anything bad onto Scotland, that's a msm lie.

Am blind to the clear fact that UKIP & SNP are virtually identical.

No, you're blind to the meaning of any words in any sentence that contains mention of the acronyms UKIP and SNP.

Only after you've actually understood the words are you in the place to reject your own made up bollocks.

Am perversely refusing to vote for a party who I despise even though Neil says I should.

PMSL. I*'ve not said that at all.

I've simply pointed out that your choice of vote can lead to a worse result than you want.

Yes-ers start off saying they want a better Scotland without the tories, and then end up thinking they should vote to help put the tories in charge.

If you can't see the insanity in that, that you'll be helping cause what you don't want to happen, there's no hope for Scotland. It's saying "vote stupid to make Scotland look stupid and suffer pain it needn't suffer".

"I'm voting yes because I'm sick of the tories, and if yes doesn't win I'm going to use my vote to help empower the tories."

Edited September 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

[eFestivals]

I'm sure you'd be just as happy about things if yes had won the vote and there were 45% of people actively trying to make the new indy Scotland fail.

That's yet another of Scotland's exceptional things, the losers never lose badly or end up doing all of the things they claimed to be against.

And neither do they struggle to understand where it all went wrong.

[LJS]

I'm sure you'd be just as happy about things if yes had won the vote and there were 45% of people actively trying to make the new indy Scotland fail.

That's yet another of Scotland's exceptional things, the losers never lose badly or end up doing all of the things they claimed to be against.

And neither do they struggle to understand where it all went wrong.

Don't tar all of the '45 with the same brush! And I certainly hope and expect once everything calms down a bit, there will be some serious thinking of where the Yes campaign went wrong - - I have given some of my views (I think - or maybe that was elsewhere!) I just hope folk do not fall into the temptation of thinking that 45% is much better than anyone thought we would do so it must have been a great campaign. We were up against the most most incompetent campaign since Baldrick the incompetent's massively incompetent campaign of incompetence (yeah I know that was rubbish, but I guess you get my point)

Heroic failure may be fun but it is still failure.