Seil Chat

Longshanks: 'If I'm correct then the SNP leaflet which came through my letterbox the other day is guilty of gross misrepresentation.'

It wasn't an 'SNP leaflet'. Who's misrepresenting things now?

My error....I should have said that "it appears that the Yes campaign may be guilty of gross misrepresentation". My apologies to the SNP.

To summarise it appears that the Yes leaflet is subtly implying that Scotland will have access to a £1 trillion kitty when the reality will be that we will have an income stream of £4 billion pa. from oil and NOT the £1 trillion alluded to.

Having read the Yes leaflet further (in particular page 3) I am coming to the conclusion that it is not giving the facts but rather a series of glossy spin with little basis in reality.

A second example in the Guarantees For The Future section is the comforting prase:

"...and some of the world's best universities"

A simple google for "100 best universties world" reveals the definitive list showing we have only one in the top 100, Edinburgh in 46th place.

I now worry that this leaflet is not giving us facts but unsubstantiated spin.

Anyone care to show I am wrong on the two examples I've shown so far ?

Concerned Shanks (Truth Seeker by choice)

I recently met a Swedish couple in the UK and asked if their trip was business or pleasure. They replied it was both, also including a vistit to their daughter at university in St Andrews. I asked what had tempted her to study there and was surprised at the bluntness of the answer: "Because it is free for foreign students". Would an independent Scotland continue to be so generous?

Longshanks is right about the Yes Campaign. They continue to assume an independent Scotland's future can be guaranteed by oil and renewable energies, but the 'facts' they put forward are hugely flawed, being based on dangerous assumptions. The wheels are falling off the wagon as they fail to offer add any credibility to their campaign with realistic plans and projects. It's no surprise that even the Yes Campaigners are beginning to fall out with each other over which way they should go. As I've said from the start, they opened a can of worms without even thinking through the implications of their actions. They have created such racial tension and a course of action that is being more and more unpopular and yet they seem to have little care for the turmoil they are creating. They are damaging the nation as a whole, and I watch the countdown clock with eagerness for the day for when this stupidity will end and we are able to get back to living together again as one nation without the risk of a minority group breaking it apart.

Five hundred and one days is a long time in politics.

"Scotland will look pretty much as it does today"

I fail to see how the Yes leaflet can assert this with any degree of certainty without it just being comforting spin.

One of many examples:

Between the referendum and the first day we will have to negotiate the terms of our membership of the EU.

Does the Yes campaign know what exactly Brussels may or may not insist upon ? Of course not therefore the statement I quoted has absolutely no basis of fact.

If Brussels insists on us agreeing to Schengen then on day one Border and Passport controls will be in place at our new International Border with the UK

If Brussels insists upon us using the Euro then on day one we will have a different currency.

These two examples may not happen or they may.

It is wrong for the Yes leaflet to insist they won't happen. At present no-one knows.

I am now fairly strong in my belief that the leaflet we received from Yes is a gross misrepresantion and devious.

I would be delighted if anyone can show me wrong on the three counts of deliberately misleading spin I have indentifiedalready (oil assets, universities, no change).

Long Shanks (by choice)

.
Nothing is certain except death and taxes . . .

I don't see anything particularly certain over the rest of this decade, in or out of the Union - but if certainty is your thing and you think staying in the Union will provide it then vote NO.

Speaking of which, anyone had any NO leaflets delivered yet? I'm sure when they arrive they will be completely unambiguous, 100% honest and spin-free, based on cast-iron unassailable fact and completely positive in tone.

I can hardly wait . . .

Pentlandpirate wrote:I recently met a Swedish couple in the UK and asked if their trip was business or pleasure. They replied it was both, also including a vistit to their daughter at university in St Andrews. I asked what had tempted her to study there and was surprised at the bluntness of the answer: "Because it is free for foreign students". Would an independent Scotland continue to be so generous?

I know it upsets some English parents that their kids have to pay tuition fees at our universities while Swedes etc don't, but tat is a matter of EU law, not generosity or spite. An independent Scotland in the EU would still be obliged to offer university places to EU students at the same rate as to Scottish students. Whether or not an independent Scotland could afford to maintain its current policy is a matter of some debate, but the recent GERS figures suggest it could.

There are three possible post-independence scenarios:

If Scotland is in the EU and the rUK remains in the EU then English students will benefit as they will be entitled under EU law to free tuition at Scottish universities - or at least to tuition at the same rates as Scottish students if these have to go up in the future.

If an independent Scotland is in the EU while the rUK votes itself out of the EU in a referendum then ironically then same situation would apply as does today - no tuition fees for EU students but English students (non-EU) would be charged tuition fees.

If Scotland is not in the EU (least likely scenario) then Scottish universities can charge all overseas students, EU or rUK, as they see fit.

NickB wrote:.
Nothing is certain except death and taxes . . .

I don't see anything particularly certain over the rest of this decade, in or out of the Union - but if certainty is your thing and you think staying in the Union will provide it then vote NO.. .

My posts are nothing to do with my voting intention (which is currently Yes actually)

My posts are to do with the dismaying and disappointing spin, untruths and misleading nature of the Yes leaflet which we all received recently.

No-one has shown that I was wrong to say the £1 trillion oil asset is utterly misleading. In fact its worse because most leading climate scientists agree that the oil companies will not be allowed to extract more than a third of that otherwise we will have catastrophic, runaway climate change.

No-one has shown I was wrong to point out that the Yes leaflets assertion that we have some of the best universities is very misleading when in fact we only have one in the top one hundred.

No-one has shown I was wrong than I said that the Yes leaflet is guilty of gross spin in its assertion that we will see no difference on day one when none of us know the outcome of the negotiations with EU, NATO, UK, UN etc.

You see I thoroughly agree with you in saying:

"Nothing is certain except death and taxes . . . I don't see anything particularly certain over the rest of this decade"

The disgrace of the Yes leaflet is that it claims certainty.

Damp Shanks (drying out by choice)

I’m afraid that when it comes to oil assets, one set of figures is about as definitive as another, in that there is no definitive set; or, alternatively, there is a plethora of ‘definitive’ sets of figures. If we are to get into a conversation about political spin, it will apply to all sides, as that, unfortunately, is the nature of cotemporary politics.

Longshanks claims that ‘The disgrace of the Yes leaflet is that it claims certainty’ and seems certain about this claim. Hmm.

Some of the best universities? Well, two in, say, the top 200 would be sufficient to argue (spin?) that this is the case, considering that there are over 17000 universities in the world (on one estimate, but here again there seems to be no consensus).

(Sigh)

.
According to the Telegraph's listing of the world's top 200 universities Edinburgh is no. 32, St. Andrews is no. 108, Glasgow is no. 139 and my Alma Mater, Aberdeen, is no. 176 - so we have four universities in the top 200. Not too shabby.

As to the oil assets - they are at current prices worth the 1 trillion quoted. Of course that amount of money may never be realised and even if it was only a small percen tage of it would be heading in the Scottish government's direction; but the leaflet did not say it would, it merely put a market value on the assets. I don't think this was designed to mislead in the way you suggest; it didn't mislead me anyway.

I think though that we need to remember that this is a political campaign . . . expecting it to be spin-free would be naive.

IMO the YES campaign has so far been a lot more honest and a lot more positive than the NO campaign, which has just been an endless series of pointless scare stories (the 80,000 treaties, the EU scaremongering when it is more likely that the UK will be the first to leave, the danger of being nuked by North Korea, the curse that is our oil reserves etc etc).

Harvard university has once again topped the Times Higher Education's world reputation ranking of universities. The 2013 rankings, show the US dominating the list with more than 40 institutions in the top 100.

Following Harvard are Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Cambridge university, taking second and third place respectively. Oxford university has climbed two places since the 2012 rankings, to take fourth place and Stanford university has dropped down to sixth.

The rankings also highlight a big improvement for Australia which now has six universities represented in the top 100 - the third highest representation in the list behind the US and the UK. Australia has two new entries: the university of New South Wales and Monash university.

With nine universities in the top 100, the UK has the second highest number of representatives after the US. University College London (UCL) has moved up one place to 20th and the London School of Economics (LSE) has jumped up to 25th in the latest rankings. Manchester university has entered the top 50 for the first time and Edinburgh university, the only Scottish institution in the list, has moved up three places to 46th place
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... -education

Only one university in the top 100.

I will leave it for the uncommited to judge if the Yes leaflet is guilty of spinning a fact into something more reassuring for voters by saying "Scotland has some of the world's best universities" in the Guarantees For The Future section

NickB wrote:As to the oil assets ..... it merely put a market value on the assets. I don't think this was designed to mislead in the way you suggest; it didn't mislead me anyway.

The leaflet is aimed at everyone living in Scotland. Most are probably less well educated and less discerning than you.

To have been truthful (or not misleading) the leaflet could have said "there is an estimated £1 trillion value in the oil deposits remaining. Although these belong to oil companies they may provide a comfortable income for Scotland through corporation tax"

The leaflet says@

we have oil and gas reserves worth over £1 trillion - that's ten times our share of the UK national debt. This is a massive safety net that would give an independent Scotland the sort of financial protection that few other nations have.

I will leave it for the uncommited to judge if the Yes leaflet is guilty of implying to the less discerning voters that the full value is reassuringly Scotland's in the Guarantees For The Future section

This referendum business is going to be a continual source of altercation on this website for over a year, and although debate on the subject is good for the democratic process it is doubtful if much positive result on either side can be achieved at this point in time.
The outcome of the referendum will be decided by the undecided at this point in time, regardless of the strength of the YES and NO supporters, and speaking as an undecided swithering voter, nothing at this stage in the game will sway me irrrevocably one way or the other (we are a fickle lot). All the money and hype poured into the campaign between now and next August (2014 -that is) would be better spent on health, infrastructure, or aboloshing beureaucracy - other suggestions available on request.

.
This vote is likely to be the single most important decision Scots voters will take in their lifetime (barring the eventuality of a NO vote and subsequent second referendum of course). In the light of this it is difficult to see how there can be too much discussion.

I do agree though that the 'NO puts up a straw man, YES knocks it down' scenario is getting a little tiresome and repetitive. However, it looks like the YES campaign may be about to change gear with the publication of the 'Common Weal' report - see A new blueprint for an independent Scotland from today's Herald.

NickB wrote:.
,,,,,,the eventuality of a NO vote and subsequent second referendum of course

Its interesting that the unthinkable has, over recent weeks, been more and more mentioned by even those wholly commited to a Yes vote.

Of course we will not have the constitutional power to hold a second referendum anyway. A likelier scenario after a No vote is that the following year Labour will regain Westminster (who would bet against it ?), and the year after Holyrood.

The Yes is now reeling after three blows last week.

1. Senior Independence figures are rebelling against the SNP insistence that we use the pound.
2. The latest IPSOS poll showing Yes firmy stuck on 30% and No moving up to 60%.
3. The report from the Institute of Chartered Accountants Scotland showing that our company and private pensions will, lilkely, collapse on independence due to EU rules on capital ratios applying due to the departure of assets earmarked to rUK members.

Interesting times and, I agree, worthy of debate.

Shankers.

.
Longshanks, perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments so far on the subject, in which case my apologies. Superficially at least though you appear to have an extraordinarily negative attitude towards the prospects of an independent Scotland for someone who claims they are intending to vote YES.

Maybe you could put forward your own vision for an independent Scotland? I assume that in spite of your consistent highlighting of the 'problems' you nonetheless think it is a viable proposition?

I'm fairly sure I've given my thoughts (vision ?) on independence here quite some time ago.

Anyway, to repeat I would like to live in a TRULY independent Scotland ie a republic with its own currency and without membership of either EU or NATO.

The Yes people are offering us something much less than that (independence lite ?) and are campaigning on the basis that we mustn't frighten the children.

"Superficially at least though you appear to have an extraordinarily negative attitude towards the prospects of an independent Scotland ". Yes, you have interpreted my posts very superficially as that is absolutely not the case.

My posts on this thread have been to show dismay at the contents of the recent Yes leaflet for its misrepresentation and spin (in order not to frighten the children ?).

I am dismayed because I feel we have a chance of a Yes vote if we report the truth and responses to problems which we must admit to. We scots are not dim If Yes continue to say everything will be just hunky dory (as in the leaflet) we will see through them and dismiss them.

My most recent post was to highlight the problems now facing the Yes campaign.

I have nowhere expressed an opinion myself which anyone should interpret as ME having a negative attitude towards our prospects if independent. My most recent post was reportage. Just because ICAS fear collapse of our pensions (for example) and I include that in a post does not mean I fear such collapse.....it was included as illustration of one of the latest problems facing Yes which may be true, may have to be admitted and not merely dismissed out of hand as No scaremongering, and a Yes solution put forward.

Independence: Scots voting for Scottish representatives which deal with Scots issues, in Scotland, i.e. having a say in our own affairs is all the ‘Independence’ that we need.

Longshanks is employing a reduction-to-absurdity argument, however, by redefining the idea of independence in terms of isolationism, and making out that anything other than 'complete' independence would merely be ‘Independence Lite’, i.e. as if anything other that withdrawing from EU and NATO, dissolution of the monarchy and adoption of own currency would not be ‘real’ independence at all. I get the point, but adopting an overly strict definition of independence is moving the goalposts away from what most people actually understand by independence, which is more to do with autonomy that isolation.

I can sympathise with Longshanks. It's a not very well known fact that once I and a colleague from Barra formed The Black Tartan Army. Along with having nationalist ideals, an anthem, uniform and secret salute we spread our form of Scottish nationalism across the four corners of the world. We only decided to pack it up when we noticed some of our mail was going missing or arriving opened and we got news of a real nationalist group giving themselves a similar name to our group, started sending real mail bombs to politicians. The thought of MI5, MI6 or Special Branch grabbing us on anti-terrorism charges was enough for us to immediately take our attempt at shipboard humour in a totally different direction. (Note: We really, really had nothing to do with terrorism)

So once upon a time I supported Scottish Independence but that was before I think I matured. I could support a case for Scottish Independence in a perfect situation, but I do not feel the right conditions exist for that at the moment and perhaps won't within a couple of generations: perhaps more.

The thrust of the Yes Campaign is that it is better for Scots to decide what Scots want. And most people would agree with that. But the people want more. It hasn't been good enough to say, "Vote for Independence and when you've got it, you decide what you want". Running a country is beyond most 'normal' people and until there is a revolution, they would prefer that the politicians sort things out for them. And the people want the politicians to do the thinking for them (that's what they are paid for). So when Alex Salmond says he can't say what an independent Scotland will look like, because a new government will have to be voted in and they will have to make the decisions only once that happens, it isn't enough. Alex Salmond says that on Day One Scotland will look the same. I don't think Yes voters want that: they want to know what will be different on Day One. And they want to know what's new that will happen on Day, 2, 3, 4 as well. The Yes Campaign is not exclusively made up of SNP members, but IMHO I believe the SNP should make up a manifesto for what it will do if voted into power in an Independent Scotland. With a plan they could attract votes instead of seeing them slide, but my fear is they can't do this either because they don't have the ideas or their ideas will be pulled to pieces as has already been the case on currency, EU membership, currency, pensions, finance, defence, immigration, etc. But they are to blame for that, opening a can of worms without thinking or caring about all the implications before they did it. The electorate want honesty and integrity.... fairness too. These are supposedly core qualities the Yes Campaign wants for an independent Scotland. But when these people themselves are spinning the truth and making wild assumptions that are easily shown to be unrealistic, it is no wonder that voters lose faith and trust the devil they know better than the one they don't.

PP, and Longshanks.

There is actually a lot that both of you have brought up that has to be taken into account.

Good! This is the measure of a healthy debate.