Scottish Independence discussion area

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Unusual that people are taking a Daily Mail headline as a basis for discussion since they usually bear little resemblance to the actual content of the story. Guessing he said he would consider it, same as they consider everything.

Also, strange to have poll with no undecided option, or do yougov polls only ever have stark yes or no as options?

Well it is very weird that that is how they report it but that is how it has always been reported all the no leads have been followed by *if you take away the undecided voters.

I think at best the no leads highest they had about 50-55% of the votes and almost 20% undecided voters.


EDIT:

Yup heres the 20 point lead no had http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/08/11/latest-scottish-referendum-poll/

YouGov's latest Scottish independence figures for the Sun, using an updated methodology, are YES at 35% (no change) and NO at 55% (+1)

So while the information is misleading it does show a big swing to the yes side unless this poll is an outlier.

cloud493 wrote: »

Thought this was interesting



http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203?fid=12994&isc=1&did=27c713f2ab5ff515a02e357bd17e1b7893758111&ctp=article

I did say it wouldn't be utopia.

Why are people in the 'No' camp even bothering to vote when by voting they're saying they don't want to have a say in the future of their country that they'd prefer others, with vested interests contrary to theirs, to make their decisions for them?

cloud493 wrote: »

Thought this was interesting



http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/hardship-alert-1-3438203?fid=12994&isc=1&did=27c713f2ab5ff515a02e357bd17e1b7893758111&ctp=article

Basically they're saying that Scotland shouldn't be independent as it will never be like Norway and then compare arbitrary prices in both countries as some sort of proof?

No sense in that argument but throwing round baseless negativity is not working for the NO campaign and hopefully continues to not work.

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Why are people in the 'No' camp even bothering to vote when by voting they're saying they don't want to have a say in the future of their country that they'd prefer others, with vested interests contrary to theirs, to make their decisions for them?

You could make the same argument about anywhere. Why don't the people of Cork vote for independence? All those Dubs don't have Cork's interests at heart, stealing all that Kinsale gas money for themselves.

Someone mentioned that the No side were only saying the negative things about independence and not the positive things about remaining in the UK. This is just a matter of perception. Saying Scotland won't have Sterling is the same as saying by voting No they get to keep Sterling and the benefits of a currency union. They have to clarify it as the other way around because of the Yes side's assertion of keeping the currency union.

Sure they could be spoofing but it went a long way to highlight Salmond's lack of fallback options initially. This was my problem with independence, it seemed like big Alex was just saying 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it' which is a little too close to the gombeen Irish politics 'Ah sure it'll be grand'.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

You could make the same argument about anywhere. Why don't the people of Cork vote for independence? All those Dubs don't have Cork's interests at heart, stealing all that Kinsale gas money for themselves.

Someone mentioned that the No side were only saying the negative things about independence and not the positive things about remaining in the UK. This is just a matter of perception. Saying Scotland won't have Sterling is the same as saying by voting No they get to keep Sterling and the benefits of a currency union. They have to clarify it as the other way around because of the Yes side's assertion of keeping the currency union.

Sure they could be spoofing but it went a long way to highlight Salmond's lack of fallback options initially. This was my problem with independence, it seemed like big Alex was just saying 'We'll cross that bridge when we come to it' which is a little too close to the gombeen Irish politics 'Ah sure it'll be grand'.

Your facts are wrong. Taxes collected in Dublin subsidise the rest of the country.

I must have missed Corks request for independence. If they asked for it I'm sure they'd get it. I'd vote for it.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Scots have it good i think. They enjoy the benefit of their own parliament will still having a say in Westminster. The English dont even have that luxury.

The English don't want that luxury. The first regional assembly was voted down at a referendum in the a north east.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's not wanted in other parts of England. The fact Scottish MP's get a say on English domestic matters while English MP's have none on some Scottish is a bit of a stickler for some people here.

That's not Scotland's fault. The "West Lothian" question has been a topic for an age.

Soon enough they won't have to worry about Scots voting for English matters.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Scots have it good i think. They enjoy the benefit of their own parliament will still having a say in Westminster. The English dont even have that luxury.

The whole concept of one country ruling another and making it's decisions for it is harking back to ugly days of British imperialism.

Getting someone to make your own decisions for you just seems insane to me.

I'm not sure if YES will win but if they don't I think an unstoppable force has been unleashed.

Stand up for Scotland, vote YES!

Its starting to look like this might actually happen. It seems to have sent most of the british establishment into a sort of political crisis, there's even talk of Cameron resigning if the yes vote wins, it's all quite amusing.

MadYaker wrote: »

Its starting to look like this might actually happen. It seems to have sent most of the british establishment into a sort of political crisis, there's even talk of Cameron resigning if the yes vote wins, it's all quite amusing.

The coverage of this really seems to have notched up in the last few days, I now expects the vested interests of the British media to do whatever they see fit to try and scare Scotland into voting No. Up to now, I think the same vested interests strategy was to try to give the referendum as little attention as possible.

If anyone wants to see any example of that scare tactic, the Daily Mail does a pretty good job of it

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It's not really like that though is it? The Scots can elect their own representatives to Westminster who have a say on what goes on there. I wouldn't call that being ruled over.

Scotland has 52 out of 600 MPs in Westminster. Approx 9%, so even if all Scottish MPs agree on something they can be outvoted 10 times over.

I would most definitely call that being ruled over.

pbear007 wrote: »

Polls reported by media suggest 51/49 in favour .Whats the betting this thing will be another George W Bush style 'job'?The powers that be dont want them to go and wont let them would be my guess.

The game changer will come this week in the form of the All party agreement to give the Scots more permission to make up their minds about their own future but there'll be enough checks and balances to ensure they remain subservient.