Seil Chat

.
Yawn yawn . . .

(Struggles back to the keyboard one last time to correct yet another piece of wilful misinformation)

The poll you and others keep banging on about is the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. It is hardly recent, having been conducted between July and November last year.

The 2012 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey interviewed a probability sample of 1,229 adults face to face between July and November 2012.

The latest Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 1,003 people was published just five days ago and shows YES 32% and NO 47% - LINK HERE. Interestingly, this poll was the first to use the actual question.

It is perhaps worth pointing out at this point that in March 2011, two months before the Holyrood election that returned an SNP majority, Labour held a 15% lead over the SNP in the opinion polls 44% to 29%. The difference between 32% and 47% in this latest poll is, coincidentally, 15%, so not so high a mountain to climb eh?

For the sake of clarity, to avoid wilful confusion being sown and for the truth:

a) I recall that when I voted in the last Holyrood election I had two votes (constituency and list). So if I'd changed my mind that would have been a TWO point swing; thus the large swing NickB refers to was TWICE as easy as any swing in the one vote referendum. Also to compare the two votes (and any swing) is totally spurious. The Parliamentary election I was voting for a party in the normal course of politics. In October next year I will be voting for a massive and irreversible change in my life.

b) Given that throughout my life the support for Independence as ALWAYS hovered around the one third mark a better question would be:
""Why do you think that the numbers of people who support independence is is near as dammit exactly the same as it has always been, and that despite over a year of SNP effort it has not increased one jot?"

GerryShanks (Mandarin by choice)

ps I did say I didn't want to participate in any petty debate on here; but, as is my perogative, I've changed my mind mainly because it is not nice to see the snide attacks on PP (a longserving member of this wee blog) and because the obfucastion here is rather annoying.

longshanks wrote:a) I recall that when I voted in the last Holyrood election I had two votes (constituency and list). So if I'd changed my mind that would have been a TWO point swing; thus the large swing NickB refers to was TWICE as easy as any swing in the one vote referendum. Also to compare the two votes (and any swing) is totally spurious. The Parliamentary election I was voting for a party in the normal course of politics. In October next year I will be voting for a massive and irreversible change in my life.

Quite apart from the fact that you don't have to cast your vote for the same party for constituency and list votes, I think the arithmetic here is just plain wrong and a 15% swing is still a 15% swing. If you want to be pedantic it was two 15% swings, a 15% swing in the constituency vote and a 15% swing in the list vote - but even I know that doesn't make it a 30% swing!

Anyway, not very surprising that someone who chooses to name themselves after Edward 1, the Hammer of the Scots, is coming out for the Unionist camp; now please try to tell us why we are 'better together' - bearing in mind that the name the NO campaign have chosen to adopt IS 'better together' and not 'worse apart' . Let's have a bit of positivity from the 'No' camp - what will people get if they vote 'No'?

Why on earth do you have to be so aggressive against anyone who you think doesn't agree with you ?

My username here is merely the nickname I had at prep school where I was considerably taller than my peers due to a growth spurt and earlier puberty than my peers. As you well know I am well over six feet (6' 4" actually).

I have already said on here that I shall be voting YES so don't ask me to put forward reasons for staying in the Union and keeping life as it is. Do not assume just because I don't agree with your analysis regarding opinion polls that I must be a Union supporter.

With all due respect have you still not understood why some many people here stopped bothering with this chatroom since a couple of years ago ? Perhaps if you were less patronising towards PP and others, and less aggressive towards me and others purely because you think they don't agree with you then, maybe, this forum may pull itself out of the slough into which it has descended.

longshanks wrote:With all due respect have you still not understood why some many people here stopped bothering with this chatroom since a couple of years ago ? Perhaps if you were less patronising towards PP and others, and less aggressive towards me and others purely because you think they don't agree with you then, maybe, this forum may pull itself out of the slough into which it has descended.

Thanks for your analysis and comment.

Your arithmetic was wrong - sorry, but I felt obliged to point that out in the interests of accuracy. I did not intend to patronise you and was interested in your views as to why we might be 'better together'. As you intend to vote Yes then perhaps I can hand over the baton to you and you can explain to PP why you think Scotland should be an independent country, as my arguments are obviously not cutting a lot of ice with him.

I look forward to reading the discussion between the two of you.

It's human nature to have a fear of the unknown and take a leap in that direction. Humans tend to herd together for strength and security and are rightly cautious in making big decisions that affect their lives. It means a smaller proportion of the poulation will take a chance, preferring stability, and better the devil you know, than the one you don't.

It's easy to always think things can be better, but we risk not appreciating enough what we already have. You have enough people like the immigrant who had come to Scotland on Question time lastnight who said words to the effect of, " I've come from ------ to the land of my dreams, Great Britain, and now I'm being asked to vote on separating it and all I can think is why would I want to do that?"

I've been asking this question over and over, and I've read most of the 'helpful' links above and I still cannot find the answers I'm looking for. Apart from more decisions being made closer to home, and a written constitution what else has been decided that hasn't descended into a debacle, such as membership of the EU, NATO, currency, etc, etc.? Even the constitution that will state that everyone will be guaranteed a home, how's that going to work?

The argument for independence is being lost because the 'Yes' campaigners refuse to divulge any ideas,(or more likely they don't have any idea) the detail of what they propose for a separate Scotland.

I don't currently live in Scotland so I will be denied a vote but I have alot of family and friends that do. And given that I consider Scotland, part of the United Kingdom, my home, I have my opinions, and discuss them with family and friends. So my opposing opinion may in some small way may have an effect on the result of the referendum. I could be persuaded to support the Yes campaign but so far, like the majority, we only hear hollow words from the 'Yes' leadership who seem utterly bereft of ideas to create a more dynamic and prosperous Scotland. Their promise to give the details nearer the time of the vote now, is losing them credibility, since they chose to start the national debate.

Good post PP.

It's OK, I've got the facts now from the Yes Campaign website, "Get the Facts".

On these pages we provide information about what Scotland will look like on day one as an independent country, based on the Scottish Government's proposals for an independent Scotland

"Day one". There is no detail beyond that. No plan, no proposal, no vision, no ideas. What about Day 2, Day 3, Day 4...........

The reality is that the Yes Campaign have only thought about what will happen on day one. No suggestion of what they hope they will have achieved after six months, a year, two years or five years. Not even any suggestion of proposals for what they would like to change, apart from their relationship with the rest of the UK. There's no suggestion to build more infrastructure, hospitals, schools, infrastructure roads, railways, no radical plans to make changes that will get large parts of the population off benefits, ............... no plans for the future after day one at all.

It's easy to blame someone else for your own misery. The Yes campaigners blame Westminster for their ills. The reality is that Scotland has had a taste of independence with the SNP Government in Scotland having considerable powers to make change in Scotland. Yet can you honestly say they have been any better than the form of Government further south?

The Welsh seem content with their devolved powers. And the Northern Irish now support the Union even more than they did 10 years ago, even though Republicans have much of the say in Northern Ireland. I'm sure the majority would have supported DevoMax in Scotland, but unfortunately the SNP are too focussed on 'the dream' and not the reality. Independence is a step too far.

(Apologies for my verbosity, but you have raised several points so I have answered them in three separate posts)

We don't know who will be governing Scotland after Day 1. It could well be a Labour government, or a coalition between any two or more parties. The YES campaign isn't a political party, nor does it have a crystal ball.

In the event of a Yes vote we will already have a pretty good idea of what the SNP's policies are. For Scottish Labour and the other main parties there will be a period of massive and rapid adjustment, then they too will set out their stall for the 2016 election of the first parliament of an independent Scotland.

It would be more helpful admittedly if Lab, Lib and Con participated constructively in answering your questions, but they won't until after a Yes vote.

The shape of a future independent Scotland is not ultimately up to Salmond or the SNP, it is up to the Scottish people. All the SNP can do is set the process in motion, say what their vision is, and do the heavy lifting in the post-referendum negotiations - although by this time the other parties wil be scrambling to have a say in the shape of a future Scotland. After that starting point it is over to the people.

(And regarding negotiations with Westminster . . . Whatever your views on independence, the last two Scottish elections have shown that the Scots trust the SNP with this job more than they trust the other parties)

Pentlandpirate wrote: I'm sure the majority would have supported DevoMax in Scotland, but unfortunately the SNP are too focussed on 'the dream' and not the reality. Independence is a step too far.

It is the London parties that have put Scotland in a position where she has to choose between independence or nothing. The SNP suggested and would have been very happy with a devo-max option on the ballot paper but Westminster ruled it out utterly. Hard to see how you can blame the SNP for that.

Pentlandpirate wrote:The reality is that Scotland has had a taste of independence with the SNP Government in Scotland having considerable powers to make change in Scotland. Yet can you honestly say they have been any better than the form of Government further south?

The Scottish electorate seem to think so. Generally they seem quite at ease with devolution, with the majority consistently supporting more powers for the Scottish government. Scotland had four years of a minority SNP government and liked it, then voted in a majority SNP government. But with a block grant and very little control over the major fiscal levers Holyrood only has limited powers to make a difference.

If you don't live in Scotland you shouldn't have a vote on independence i might have lived in Ireland once but i don't expect to have an influence on what gov it has. No one honestly expects UK gov to tell everyone what there plans are and the no campaign basically consists of us being told that it will never work because we are not up to it and lamonty says we are the only `something for nothing society in Europe`that coming from a person who got free education in her youth though you can hardly tell. No one expects you (pp) to be persuaded on the benefits of independence with the love affair you have with the Daily Mail the plans will come out when it suits but you are not to be persuaded anyway so whats the problem

I'll say it again because you don't seem to get it. I was born in a land called Great Britain, a country and State called the United Kingdom. I have lived in those parts of the United Kingdom individually called Scotland, Wales and England. The United Kingdom is my home. And now some people in part of it want to take part of my home away and change my home forever. I am denied a vote on the future of my home even though I have Scots blood and spent the longest single period of my life in Scotland. I will do what I can to oppose those who wreck my home, in the same way that one half of a divorcing couple may seek revenge out of bitterness for the other party's selfishness.

By the way I read many on-line papers, not just the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail just happens to be the most popular on-line newspaper in the world so I am not alone, and as for being intransigent, perhaps I am. But are you sure that NickB, you and the others who stick 'Yes' on your avatars, aren't just as cemented on your viewpoint as well?

Pentlandpirate wrote:I will do what I can to oppose those who wreck my home, in the same way that one half of a divorcing couple may seek revenge out of bitterness for the other party's selfishness.

Truly a case of 'Bitter Together' then.

Calling the Scots selfish for wanting to be in charge of their own affairs is a bit unreasonable, do you not think? Scotland will still be here for you to visit or take up residence in - there are no plans to physically separate it and tow it away to warmer climes as far as I know.

Anyway, as Husker said, there is no reason you should expect to have an influence on what government Scotland has unless you live here. Are you thinking of moving back so you can have a vote?

In terms of selfishness can you not appreciate the one-sidedness in this process? Being a British citizen, like you, I own a little of Scotland the same as you do. In the same way that you own a bit of England , Wales and Northern Ireland too. Scotland is part of my country, my home, and yet some people may have the right to take part of it away from me. It's like your teenage son coming to you and saying that he is going to section off his bedroom and make it into an independent flat, and that when he's had enough of living there he wants to sell his bit and move elsewhere. You might rightly say, "Hang on a second. This is my home. What the hell do you think you are doing claiming part of it for yourself?"

Pentlandpirate wrote:In terms of selfishness can you not appreciate the one-sidedness in this process? Being a British citizen, like you, I own a little of Scotland the same as you do. In the same way that you own a bit of England , Wales and Northern Ireland too. Scotland is part of my country, my home, and yet some people may have the right to take part of it away from me. It's like your teenage son coming to you and saying that he is going to section off his bedroom and make it into an independent flat, and that when he's had enough of living there he wants to sell his bit and move elsewhere. You might rightly say, "Hang on a second. This is my home. What the hell do you think you are doing claiming part of it for yourself?"

I own a bit of Scotland because I have lived here for most of my life, worked here and bought property here. My children were born here and live and work here, my grandchildren are here and I expect to die and be buried here. I don't 'own' a bit of England, or Wales, or N. Ireland, and find the concept quite absurd.

There will be a referendum, the process has been agreed by both the Scottish and the UK government, and only people on the electoral register in Scotland at the time will be allowed to vote. If you feel strongly enough about it you will have to make sure you are on the electoral register at the time so you can cast your vote.

You should count yourself lucky that the English do not have a vote in the referendum. Most recent polls indicate that they would vote to expel Scotland from the Union because they believe the Scots are a burden on the UK.

Are you thinking of moving back so you can have a vote?

No I'm only thinking of moving to Balvicar to annoy you!

Pentlandpirate wrote:

Are you thinking of moving back so you can have a vote?

No I'm only thinking of moving to Balvicar to annoy you!

You manage that just fine from a distance Pentland

You've seen nothing yet!