Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Scottish independence referendum polling thread

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

  • Yes

    Votes: 43 66.2%

  • No

    Votes: 17 26.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 4.6%
  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .
littlebabyjesus said:
Not necessarily. The other option is to share England's immigration policy. Does beg some questions, though. If an 'independent' Scotland wants to share a head of state, open border, and currency with the rest of the UK, which effectively means sharing many of its economic, foreign, and immigration policies, among others, that does rather beg the question: what exactly is 'independence'? Sounds rather more like dependence to me.
Click to expand...

I agree with the analysis, especially this 'Independent' Scotland will also remain part of the WTO, NATO, IMF as well as being tied to the remnant of the UK. Kind of hard to see what it is independent from. However as it represents, however spectrally, a move towards decentralization of powers and provides a progressive (albeit largely symbolic), kick-in-the teeth for the governing classes, I still, just support independence.

However as pedant, I have to point out that you mean 'raise the question' not 'beg the question'. To 'beg the question' is to be guilty of circular reasoning (e.g. I know the Bible is the truth because the Bible says so...') And so my contribution to is rightly ignored for being so dull and pernickety.
 
Ungrateful said:
I agree with the analysis, especially this 'Independent' Scotland will also remain part of the WTO, NATO, IMF as well as being tied to the remnant of the UK. Kind of hard to see what it is independent from.
Click to expand...
All countries are subject to treaties. The UK is currently a member of those organisations and more. Is it not independent? I'm amused by this line of argument - "don't vote Yes, because you aren't getting enough independence". We get it a lot from people who would vote No to any amount of independence.

We can't instantly create a world that doesn't exist; we have to deal with the one that's here now. Does that mean nobody can demand greater autonomy or self determination? No, it doesn't.
 
danny la rouge said:
All countries are subject to treaties. The UK is currently a member of those organisations and more. Is it not independent? I'm amused by this line of argument - "don't vote Yes, because you aren't getting enough independence". We get it a lot from people who would vote No to any amount of independence.

We can't instantly create a world that doesn't exist; we have to deal with the one that's here now. Does that mean nobody can demand greater autonomy or self determination? No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I am not arguing for 'no'. I am in favour of 'yes' even though the autonomy on offer is largely illusionary, just as it is for any relatively powerless individual within any capitalist nation state (UK or 'independent' Scotland).

Your response, is rich and I have enormously sympathy with it, but it raises (Not 'begs') all sorts of adjacent ones: What does greater self-determination mean in this context? Which self is being the determinant? A bourgeois self or a socialist one, a fixed, chauvinist self or a fluid adaptable one? And who represents and manages this self or selves? Is it even desirable to have a political goal written in the rhetoric of independence, when we are vulnerable, dependent creatures? And as French and Gordon have noted in their excellent piece and presentation, what is it that is being omitted or marginalized in the debate around independence? Largely it revolves still around the fundamental legitimacy of liberal, state forms, even though they are now (large or small) restructured to maintain a particular form (or forms) of neo-liberal capitalism. Of course a 'No' Vote reinforces all the reactionary social structures and ideological presuppositions.
 
tbf the simplest and most convincing argument for indy is the one salmond and others have made repeatedly- to stay together means once more being saddled with policies and decsions from a government you didn't vote for.

Leave aside that its not a real democracy anyway, we have no right of recall, no quorums, fptp, targetted swing seats, parachuted minions to safe seats etc. Forget that for a minute, it doesn't make sense even by what they please to call democracy to have scotlands voters constantly boyed off by westminster blu/red tories. I'm sure the sins of the SNP will find them out and scotland will have to see what it can do there. It's re-arranging furniture in my opinion, whereas pro-union hysterics like toynbee and so on are acting like its fucking partition
 
Ungrateful said:
Agreed, but I am not arguing for 'no'. I am in favour of 'yes' even though the autonomy on offer is largely illusionary, just as it is for any relatively powerless individual within any capitalist nation state (UK or 'independent' Scotland).

Your response, is rich and I have enormously sympathy with it, but it raises (Not 'begs') all sorts of adjacent ones: What does greater self-determination mean in this context? Which self is being the determinant? A bourgeois self or a socialist one, a fixed, chauvinist self or a fluid adaptable one? And who represents and manages this self or selves? Is it even desirable to have a political goal written in the rhetoric of independence, when we are vulnerable, dependent creatures? And as French and Gordon have noted in their excellent piece and presentation, what is it that is being omitted or marginalized in the debate around independence? Largely it revolves still around the fundamental legitimacy of liberal, state forms, even though they are now (large or small) restructured to maintain a particular form (or forms) of neo-liberal capitalism. Of course a 'No' Vote reinforces all the reactionary social structures and ideological presuppositions.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. And refer you to the very long thread in the Scotland forum.
 
The next Scottish polls are being eagerly awaited to see if they will confirm the shift to yes recorded in the YouGov one for the Sunday Times, or if they will show it was just a blip.

However, the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill has been told there is little relief on the horizon for Alistair Darling and the no campaign: that the next poll to be published on Tuesday will confirm the trend.

How will the markets react to that?
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...eferendum-live#block-540dc236e4b0678f1b1106d6
 
Sue said:
Which is, of course, in England. Personally I'd be happy to include bits of Cumbria/Northumbria but...:hmm:
Click to expand...

Maybe ceding parts of Cumbria and Northumbria to Scotland in return for them giving up the right to use the Pound is part of Cameron's cunning negotiating plan. Then they can build a proper line of defence for Miliband's armed border guards to occupy :eek:
 
Looks like the TNS poll has it at a dead heat when you remove the undecideds :eek: which when you consider the context of the previous TNS polls is a pretty massive swing to Yes

BxB3swKIAAAgDN5.png


 
weepiper said:
It's a TNS poll due out tonight according to a Mail journo I follow on twitter.
Click to expand...

If the TNS-BMRB is as juicy as the journo twitter-teasing suggests that would represent significant support for the YG 'Yes' lead. TNS polling that is usually latched onto the end of commercial market research and therefore conducted face-to-face. This reduces the chance of skewing by self-selecting, online panel members.
 
Just going to wade in here after many years of absence to say how ridiculous I have found the arguments of people who want Scotland to stay in the UK. Most of those I've spoken to will go as far as to admit that they know they want Scotland to stay in the UK "for selfish reasons" and this is not seen as even slightly suspect.
 
Ladbrokes' blogger 's take on the state of play...

The odds of a “photo finish” with the margin of victory being less than 1% have now hit 8/1 – you could have got 33/1 when we first quoted that possibility last month.

The YES vote percentage line has moved up from 43.5% to 47.5% in less than a week, which means our central projection is that NO will still win this by about 5%. I guess we are still relying on the political science here, which suggests that it is more likely that undecideds will break for NO. That’s because uncommitted voters in these sorts of referenda have shown a tendency to move toward the status quo, although some suggest that it is better to look as it as people heading toward the least risky option. It’s possible that the YES camp have done a good job of pointing out that a NO vote has many risks as well, notably on EU membership and the NHS. Perhaps that will tilt the balance in the favour of independence.
Click to expand...
 
brogdale said:
Ladbrokes' blogger 's take on the state of play...
Click to expand...


possibly something in that last bit- salmonds second round with Darling was judged a resounding win and he spent a lot of time hammering home the NHS, welfare state, bedroom tax and trident. In contrast to the first 'leaders debate' he won the argument as well as the crowd.

I'd really love to see some post-vote analysis done on how many women switched to yes after that awful eat your cereal advert. When its this close things as minor as that suddenly factor I suppose
 
Am I missing something here? Has there been some sort of rabbit-holey-rift in the fabric of time?

Gordon Brown has revealed plans to rush new tax and welfare powers for Scotland through Westminster before the next election, in an effort to stop Labour voters backing independence.

The former prime minister said Labour wanted draft legislation ready by the end of next January, only four months after the referendum on 18 September, as part of an urgent effort by the no campaign to regain control of the independence debate.
Click to expand...

Wtfuckingfuck?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...don-brown-tax-welfare-powers-timetable-labour
 
It seems like (yet another) a stupid move for the BT campaign, it just makes them look like their panicking and rushing around like headless chickens. I can't believe it's a move that will win over voters.

I think that BT might even beat the "Yes to AV" and anti-UKIPists as the most counter effective campaign in recent history, managing to turn as many people to Yes and the pro-indepenence group. Even single move it's made has been utter rubbish.
 
A poster on another message board likened the independence process to the divorce process. Before things are finalised one party is prepared to give more and more; once the decision is final they screw the other for every last penny. But it doesn't really matter in the long term.
 
Quartz said:
A poster on another message board likened the independence process to the divorce process. Before things are finalised one party is prepared to give more and more; once the decision is final they screw the other for every last penny. But it doesn't really matter in the long term.
Click to expand...
That poster sound alike an idiot
 
That TNS poll data. (pdf)

From quick skim whilst watching football it seems that of those DKs NO has 16% and YES 12% - the rest are proper DKs.

Both sides seem equally likely to vote.

31% think YES will win 45% think NO.
 
Last edited:
a sage mate's opinion for what it's worth who usually turns our right on most things....just looked up the bookies more money still going on a no so better odds on a yes. When I was up in Edinburgh for the festival a month ago most of the older Scots I cahtted to in queues or on the street seemed to favour No whereas younger folk were undecided or tentative Yes.


"Re the Scottish - yes, the balance is shifting, with Darlings inept performance in the second debate to blame, I would say. However, I still reckon there is a hidden lump of secret No voters than will keep them in the union. My argument is the same as with the Tories - who always do better than the polls suggest.

The current 51/49 split in the media is ridiculous as it doesn't include don't knows, The real result (which is very hard to find, by the way is 47/45)

Everyone who is inclined to say "Yes" shouts it from the rooftops and says so in polls

Saying "No", however sensible, feels a bit sheepish, and cowardly. In a poll, its might feel easier, and even truthful to say you don't know.

I also think it discounts individuals within peer groups saying yes, but privately voting no.

In a nutshell, I think you can almost add the "don't knows" to the "no"s (I'm beginning to sound like Donald Rumslfed)

The media is doing a very poor job here in analyzing a situation quite different to the normal bi party arguments, and are being unsophisticated in their thinking

Thats what I think, anyway.

PS. If I was Scottish, I's be tempted to vote yes"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

quimcunx
  • Poll
What is your polling station usually?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
ska invita
ska invita
cupid_stunt
The weird investigation into the Legacy Independent Funeral Directors, Hull
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
4K
andysays
andysays
ska invita
  • Poll
Stonehenge Tunnel Poll
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
4K
farmerbarleymow
farmerbarleymow
Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
beesonthewhatnow
UK general election - the U75 poll
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
256
Views
11K
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom