Seil Chat

.
The row over Scotland keeping the pound has seen a boost in support for Scottish independence, according to the latest polling evidence today.

The gap between the Yes and No camps is down to nine points, with the pro-independence campaign on 38 points, while the pro-union side sits on 47%, according to the Survation poll for the Daily Mail.

Pull the other one!

.
From the Financial Times:

Scottish independence: Poll shows Yes campaign gaining ground

No it doesn't. According to the latest Ipsos/MORI poll it shows the opposite.

57% plan to vote NO, 32% will vote yes, down 2 points since September
52% of Scots fear weaker pound on Yes vote.
Independence would lead to spending cuts, say 49% per cent of Scots.
Threat from George Osborne to block currency union heightens fears

Read more bad news for the Yes campaign here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rning.html

Innes Newton wrote:No it doesn't. According to the latest Ipsos/MORI poll it shows the opposite.

That is a different poll, so your 'no it doesn't' comment is nonsensical.

Apologies. I think your original link to THAT poll has disappeared. But that was a nonsensical poll that said if you removed the 'don't knows' then of the remaining voters the 'Yes' vote had increased. How can you justify deleting the 'don't knows' from a poll and claim it to be credible?

The Ipsos/MORI poll which I refer to is more recent and more credible. This shows the YES vote has fallen since Alex Salmond was told an independent Scotland could not use the Pound as part of a currency union with the UK.

57% plan to vote NO
32% plan to vote YES

A couple of points worth noting here. I can't find the original poll so cannot comment on it's details, but I disagree with Innes' point. Come September, the "don't knows" will be removed from the calculation. Only the "Yes" and "No" votes will be counted. Anyone who writes "don't know" on the ballot will be wasting their and everyone else's time. So I think it is entirely legitimate to look at only the ratio between "Yes" and "No", it is after all the ratio which will determine the outcome.

I do also consider it an utter waste of everyone's time to give even fleeting attention to opinion polls. There seems to be a new one every hour or so, the opinions they claim to report vary wildly. Which get published where depends entirely on the bias of the publisher (ad hominem it may be, but the Daily Telegraph is unlikely to publish a poll helpful to the independence cause), and I do not believe any waverer's opinion is influenced by them. Non-waverers even less so. Any poll which reinforces their opinion is the most detailed and accurate poll ever published, any that don't are based on inadequate data and flawed methodology.

I want people to persuade me how to vote by giving arguments pro and con. I don't want to be bludgeoned by data telling me how everyone else is going to vote. Appeal to my intellect, not my herd instinct.

A problem is Tim who do you believe?

I, like others, have seen reports of the Westminster attitude towards a currency union as being a boost for both sides of the divide.

Like most YES supporters I believe the broadcasting/publishing media are biased in favour of 'no.' I therefore post on Facebook much material from pro-indy groups in order to attempt to give another version of the truth and indeed what was really said by individuals and organisations.

For example, Standard Life did NOT say it was relocating when Scotland became independent but listening to the BBC and reading most newspapers the departure of the organisation was imminent.

I would recommend one organisation highly as it certainly cuts through the crap abounding, interprets in often a totally different way, digs deep and puts, of course, an idependent slant to the referendum debate. The site is 'Wings over Scotland.' There, are, of course others.

The point is there are other sources of the truth that are not getting into the public domain unless through social media. Another example: is the population at large aware of the Johan Lamont opinion that "In Scotland, we're not genetically programmed to make political decisions!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=yo ... pp=desktop

Disgraceful remarks that the public should be aware of!

Good luck in finding the truth - it is out there!

.
Panelbase/Newsnet Scotland (7-14 March)
Yes: 40%
No: 45%
Undecided: 15%

Binary, excluding undecided
Yes: 47%
No: 53%

That's a gnat's whisker.

The two principal protagonists in this Debate? seem to be obsessed with opinion polls - each siting one favourable to their cause.
Is this argy-bargy going to continue for the next 6 months?
If so, I think that you will find a drop off in the number of hits that the site gets.
Here is an interesting point w2hich has come to my notice, and it has nothing to do with opinion polls.
Background - I have a son who works in Singapore. He is pretty high up the corporate ladder, but there is a 2 year university course which would almost make him a consultant.
Two universities - Strathclyde and Newcastle both offer this course, and he has been accepted for whichever one he chooses - both courses start in September.
On a recent phone call to us he said that he was very worried about the outcome of the referendum, on deciding which university to choose. His belief was that if he chose Strathclyde and Scotland went independent, the degree would be second rate compared to Newcastle. His perception was that, come independence, there would be a heamorage?
of university staff southward, and that the prestige or standing of Scotish decrees would decrease.
Now as resident Scots we found this an unusual point of view, and tried to point out that it would have no bearing on the relative value of University degrees.
However, his is a view held without any input on our part, and it might be difficult for the
YES campaign to convince him and others of the same ilk, that their fears are unfounded.

.
Your son's fears are not shared by university principals, who in fact fear the opposite :

Scottish independence: University influx fears


The idea that a degree from Strathclyde would ever be considered inferior to a degree from Newcastle is a strange one.

Newcastle ranks 180th in the world university table. Strathclyde ranks 79th.

I think a lot of it comes down to this:

Those who want to work for a better future think Scotland is better as part of the UK.

Those who want to be given a better future think Scotland is better on its own.

Innes Newton wrote:I think a lot of it comes down to this:

Those who want to work for a better future think Scotland is better as part of the UK.

Those who want to be given a better future think Scotland is better on its own.

I am sure this means something to you.

I'm sure you know what I mean. There are those who want a better life for themselves who are prepared to work hard and go and get it and there are those who think they can only get a better way of life by being given it.

An independent Scotland will steer to the left of the political spectrum with higher taxation on those who make the money and provide the jobs, to pay for an over inflated and dependent public sector with too many 'non-jobs' looking after too big a proportion of the population trapped on benefits.

Labour will lose the benefit of its MP's from Scottish Constituencies tilting the political balance in rUK in favour of the Conservatives and right of centre governance encouraging capitalist policies. Just as so many Scots have already sought their fortune in the south, this situation will only speed up with a brain drain from an independent Scotland towards the lands of greater opportunity and lower taxation elsewhere. It's been happening for hundreds of years already but Scottish independence will only exacerbate the problem.

I envisage a two tier British Isles: the north sold into socialist slavery and the south and rest a land where people have a better chance of making their fortune. If some Scots thought the UK was a divided nation already, it is nothing compared to what it is likely to become. I see England becoming a very awkward (not by choice) and overbearing neighbour for an independent Scotland relatively isolated by geography with most of its transport links with the rest of the world through England.

As someone who is British, half English and half Scots, I do not want to see my country split up. It is true that the Yes campaign panders to those who are left of centre in their politics. Left wing politics spent decades cultivating a section of society fed on handouts to keep them in power, creating non-jobs and persisting in inefficient industries that could not pay their way in the world. Socialists don't know how to make money, and only know how to throw away money grabbed from those who have worked harder to create it. Socialists, such as the SNP, are the enemy of a prosperous nation.

In theory there is no way back for an independent Scotland if it leaves the UK. Those who vote Yes must have the confidence in the Scottish politicians to make a success of the country. But after years of government at Holyrood are the signs encouraging? Was the White Paper a road map to a better future you can expect to come to fruition?

Less than six months before the referendum those same people don't even know what currency an independent Scotland would use? Or when or if Scotland would be a member of the EU? Or what the cost of becoming independent will be? Or whether becoming independent would force many very large employers to take their jobs out of Scotland. Or whether it would be in NATO. Or how it would defend itself given that Mr Putin has discovered he can take other sovereign countries with impunity (at least what he has done in support of Russians in Crimea sets a useful precedent. Should the population of Scotland, with a significant proportion of English speakers, decide they don't like being part of an independent Scotland they can invite rUK tanks over the border to re-annex Scotland to the UK! )

This is not scaremongering. This is not telling the Scots how it will be. This is just stating facts, facts that the Yes campaign has not answered. It's a very poorly thought out plan.

So, Yes campaigners might say being independent couldn't be any worse than being part of the UK. Too many people despise what others have, without being prepared to work for it themselves. Too many people in life don't appreciate what they already have, but prefer to focus on what they don't have. The UK is not perfect, but hey, it's now one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world because people in so many other countries think the UK is a better place to live and work in. Quite why Scotland should want to become independent is a mystery to every single foreigner I have met (and that is alot).

By the way Nick, in the interests of fairness, and as a 'gentle' and inoffensive way of expressing a view can we have a 'No' Smilie?

Innes Newton wrote: . . . people don't even know what currency an independent Scotland would use? Or when or if Scotland would be a member of the EU? Or what the cost of becoming independent will be? Or whether becoming independent would force many very large employers to take their jobs out of Scotland. Or whether it would be in NATO. Or how it would defend itself

All these questions have been answered in considerable detail.

You and your fellow naysayers choose to ignore those answers.

I would like to backtrack it a bit to Nick B's reply to the question I raised about a dilemma my son had about choosing a university.
I find his reply somewhat ambiguous in defending the Scottish Universities.
Firstly he says that the Universities are worried about being swamped with people from all airts opting for free places, north of the border, as though this was an argument for their excellence. Surely this is only a reflection on financial reality.
Secondly, he cites the relative standing of Strathclyde and Newcastle in an order of merit.
This does not take into account the relative standing of the degrees offered, nor does it bear any future merit on their relative standing, after a possible Yes vote. Current standing has no bearing on what might happen in the future.
As I said in my original piece, I did not share my son's rather pessimistic view on the standing of Scottish Universities should Independence come about, but he holds these views, and Nick B's reply has done nothing to dispel them.

.
I can see absolutely no reason why independence will make any difference to the quality of Scottish universities.

Perhaps your son is unaware that education is already a wholly devolved matter?

All these questions have been answered in considerable detail.

Nick some of these answers have been answered in considerable detail with answers which are no longer credible and thousands of questions remain completely unanswered. The white paper always was nothing more than an airy fairy wish list. Since it was published the answers have been answered with: There will be no currency sharing union to use the Pound and It will be almost impossible if not impossible for Scotland to join the EU. The Yes Campaign has never answered how much the process to become independent will cost Scotland. And in considering the answers to other questions they have so far failed to answer, or deliberately not answered, the Yes Campaign is in disarray and a confused state like if eventually awakening from a cosy dream into the grey light of a frosty morning.

Jim's son is right to consider his future so carefully. The Universities are concerned too http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-26681897 but they can't get the answers they need from . Their interest is in maintaining the best possible institutions. How can they project for the future if they have no idea who will pay and who won't? If there is a huge influx of rUK students demanding under EU law to be educated for free who carries the cost and how will the universities pay to run their courses? If they run out of money it could affect the standard of what they do, and in time could just be one way in which Scottish Universities slip down the league tables. It's yet another example of how socialists such as the SNP have no idea of economics or where money comes from and have not properly considered all the implications of independence.

The whole independence question is badly destabilising not just for Scotland but for the whole UK, and the ripples extend to Europe and further afield. I deal daily with people all over the world. It seems to me that pretty well everyone, without exception that I can think of, who is not a Yes campaigner, looks at Scotland and thinks, "What on earth do they think they are doing?"

Universities need to know . . . Right, of ourselves they get total assurance under a Westminster government, don't they?

What with the imposition of tuition fees, the LibDem broken manifesto promises and the prospect of an in/out EU referendum . .. They have always known exactly where they stand, haven't they?

Scotland will do just fine governing itself like a proper country, and your constant insistence that it is incapable of doing so is, frankly, insulting.

Scotland will do just fine governing itself like a proper country, and your constant insistence that it is incapable of doing so is, frankly, insulting.

But if that is the way you see things then that makes your views on "Westminster" are insulting! I'm not saying a Scottish Government will fail to govern well, and I'm not saying the Westminster government excel, but I am saying it is easy to find fault in anything but I choose to see the positives in what we already have without any need to break it up. There are more than adequate means within the current system to make our nation a better and fairer one without creating greater divisions amongst us. We are too intertwined and connected as one nation to easily unravel it all......and for what?