Will you vote for independence?

[ddraig]

init

 

[butchersapron]

who has temples? theres synagouge, mosque, church, shrine. Wheres the temples (other than the sides of the head)

10 000 sikhs in scotland.

 

[DotCommunist]

ah right. I was trying to work out what temple was whistle for.

 

[gosub]

the Sikh temple a minute from our flat is pretty vibrant, came out for yes inJanuary

 

[Diamond]

Is it really too much for you to imagine that a considered opinion cannot be influenced by or formed from sympathy and agreement with westminister and the city of london? That a series of close relationships from the professional to the personal, from the political to the economic - that network of shared interests is precisely what lies behind that considered opinion?

Ah, another of diamonds famous economic predictions! The Euro is dead by the end of the week - that was a cracker.

So it's essentiallly an ad hominem argument then?

Always a little suspicious of those for fairly obvious reasons.

The odd thing about all these cries of - BBC bias! Panicked establishment! London/Westminster dark arts! - is that they overlook a fairly simple reality, at least down here in London, that the majority of people are against Scottish independence simply because they think it is not a very good idea. Fair enough, you can argue that the Scots have every right to tell them to shove off but if the media outlets of rUK are overwhelmingly against a no vote, they are only representative of popular opinion.

That's why all the fairly paranoid stuff flying around atm from the yes camp is a little bit worrying and makes me wonder whether any negative consequences from independence might simply be wrapped up into a variant of this London/Westminster conspiracy thing...

 

[ddraig]

So it's essentiallly an ad hominem argument then?

Always a little suspicious of those for fairly obvious reasons.

The odd thing about all these cries of - BBC bias! Panicked establishment! London/Westminster dark arts! - is that they overlook a fairly simple reality, at least down here in London, that the majority of people are against Scottish independence simply because they think it is not a very good idea. Fair enough, you can argue that the Scots have every right to tell them to shove off but if the media outlets of rUK are overwhelmingly against a no vote, they are only representative of popular opinion.

That's why all the fairly paranoid stuff flying around atm from the yes camp is a little bit worrying and makes me wonder whether any negative consequences from independence might simply be wrapped up into a variant of this London/Westminster conspiracy thing...

omg! do you actually believe that the mainstream media are "representative of popular opinion" ???

 

[butchersapron]

So it's essentiallly an ad hominem argument then?

Always a little suspicious of those for fairly obvious reasons.

The odd thing about all these cries of - BBC bias! Panicked establishment! London/Westminster dark arts! - is that they overlook a fairly simple reality, at least down here in London, that the majority of people are against Scottish independence simply because they think it is not a very good idea. Fair enough, you can argue that the Scots have every right to tell them to shove off but if the media outlets of rUK are overwhelmingly against a no vote, they are only representative of popular opinion.

That's why all the fairly paranoid stuff flying around atm from the yes camp is a little bit worrying and makes me wonder whether any negative consequences from independence might simply be wrapped up into a variant of this London/Westminster conspiracy thing...

No, it's essentially an argument that you have missed what lies behind what you call considered opinion - as if newspapers editors considered opinions do not form out of a dense network of shared interests and motivations among the powerful. A position that betrays more than a little naivety as to the ways of the world.

 

[8ball]

No, it's essentially an argument that you have missed what lies behind what you call considered opinion - as if newspapers editors considered opinions do not form out of a dense network of shared interests and motivations among the powerful. A position that betrays more than a little naivety as to the ways of the world.

True dat. I also don't think it's so paranoid to suppose that any moves towards progressive politics in Scotland will attract fiscal punishment from many quarters, though.

 

[geminisnake]

at least down here in London, that the majority of people are against Scottish independence simply because they think it is not a very good idea. .

And still they are spectacularly missing the point. They don't live in Scotland, so what they think is irrelevant. The people in London do NOT see what is happening because they are 500 miles away and they are being fed SHITE by the MSM.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sorry, this is going back a bit, but while the recent "pledge" doesn't seem to offer anything concrete, it remains true that extra powers from the 2012 act such as setting income tax rate would come into play following a no vote, doesn't it?

We don't know. It was once the case that No meant the 2012 Act, but it's no longer clear what would apply now.

 

[ddraig]

sorry if already posted
http://www.arethescotsindependentyet.com/

 

[Quartz]

Maybe their official stance is no because that reflects the editor's considered opinion?

ITYM 'owner', not 'editor'.

 

[Quartz]

ah Quartz crawls out from under its rock!

I've had a lovely holiday in France, thank you.

 

[butchersapron]

ITYM 'owner', not 'editor'.

Which owner would that be?

 

[19sixtysix]

They are, as my mate pointed out, going to lose their shit when they discover you can't go in wearing your Yes badge.

Especially if the sign on wall says "NO YES BADGES"

 

[iamwithnail]

"That's right, YES NO BADGES."
Just to confuse them.

 

[geminisnake]

Why would I be bothered about taking my badge off?

 

[butchersapron]

You're allowed wear badges, rosettes,scarfs anything you want in the polling station as a voter.

 

[teuchter]

We don't know. It was once the case that No meant the 2012 Act, but it's no longer clear what would apply now.

I don't quite understand - the act has already been passed, hasn't it? Who decides whether it would "apply"?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't quite understand - the act has already been passed, hasn't it? Who decides whether it would "apply"?

An act can provide provisions for an action to be taken under certain circumstances. It doesn't necessarily mean that all provisions of it must be immediately put into force.

 

[teuchter]

So under what circumstances does the act allow, say, the income tax powers to be put in place? Is it not spelled out clearly in the act itself?

 

[pogofish]

Two of my colleagues - both of whom have Yes window stickers, had their cars absolutely plastered in No stickers this morning. Both spent the rest of the day trying to get the gunk off their windows before having to drive home!

 

[ddraig]

becasue that will convince em!!
or they've got so many left over as not many takers?

 

[cesare]

So under what circumstances does the act allow, say, the income tax powers to be put in place? Is it not spelled out clearly in the act itself?

It's already put in place and due to commence April 2016, isn't it?

 

[pogofish]

becasue that will convince em!!
or they've got so many left over as not many takers?

Maybe - they absolutely blitzed the place with No stickers and flyers this morning. Just to get rid of them?

 

[pogofish]

It's already put in place and due to commence April 2016, isn't it?

I think that is only a tentative/provisional timescale.

 

[cesare]

I think that is only a tentative/provisional timescale.

I thought it was at stage 3 amendments (Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Bill)

 

[danny la rouge]

So under what circumstances does the act allow, say, the income tax powers to be put in place? Is it not spelled out clearly in the act itself?

Well, if you look back in the thread to before all the Better Together announcements, you'll see that I was saying a No vote wasn't a vote for the status quo, but for the measures in the 2012 Act.

The Act has been passed, but were due to take effect in 2016 (if we vote No, obviously).

However, that's been overtaken by events. All the Unionist parties subsequently said they'd "improve" on the Act, and have set out various schemes of their own. They have all said the act is inadequate. So the Act is now outdated, and it isn't clear whether it will now be amended before being put into force, put into force before further changes are made, or scrapped in order to be superseded by a replacement. Also not clear is what the parties are actually proposing; none of them has finalised their offer to the electorate. And which of those yet-to-be-finalised offerings, if any, we'd get is anyone's guess.

Can the Tories deliver what they've said is on offer, given the backlash already evident in their party? Can Labour, were they to win in 2015? We know the Lib Dems can't.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...g-face-anger-over-taxpayers-cash-9735431.html

The only thing that's clear is that in the event of a No vote, devolution will be a contentious issue, with perhaps years of tortuous wrangling, uncertainty and indecision.

 

[weepiper]

Glasgow tonight

 

[weepiper]

This is George Square, Glasgow this evening

'Police say around 2000 in attendance'