Will you vote for independence?

[geminisnake]

Every, and I do mean every, photo of BT meetings I have seen have been mostly(70% at least) Tory & Slab councillors. They had one on the Isles somewhere, less than 20 people, they had one in Angus same sort of numbers(these are the 2 I remember, there will have been others). There seems to be one staunch supporter, a strange Labour councillor from Dundee, who sits on her own at public events while people go to the Yes stand. As danny says very little grass roots for UKOK/BT.

 

[Quartz]

I wonder if people remember the reception given to Nigel Farage and are afraid to openly campaign for the union?

 

[weepiper]

I wonder if people remember the reception given to Nigel Farage and are afraid to openly campaign for the union?

He didn't get that reception for being pro-union, he got it for being a racist.

 

[ska invita]

I wonder if people remember the reception given to Nigel Farage and are afraid to openly campaign for the union?

It would be great if the English part of the No campaign could be goaded into campaigning more forcefully/publicly in Scotland. Get Cameron up there. Better still get Osbourne up to Glasgow to talk about the economic benefits

 

[weepiper]

It would be great if the English part of the No campaign could be goaded into campaigning more forcefully/publicly in Scotland. Get Cameron up there. Better still get Osbourne up to Glasgow to talk about the economic benefits

Got to love the body language here (Dumbarton btw)

 

[Frankie Jack]

Whats the current feeling up there Scottish posters? I mean what vibe are you getting from people?

Are we going to have to move all Scottish political discussion to the World Politics forum or what?

Short reply. Everyone I know is a yesser.. No Nos, No unsures. All Yes.

 

[danny la rouge]

I wonder if people remember the reception given to Nigel Farage and are afraid to openly campaign for the union?

Farage is not now and never has been the face of Unionism in Scotland. The face of Unionism in Scotland is the Labour party. It has always, until recently, had good electoral success in Scotland.

The majority of Scots are pro Union. And it's not knife-edge. It's 60 - 70%. That's every poll for decades upon decades.

People are not afraid to tell you they support the Union.

I think there are two reasons behind the lack of Better Together activism. The first is that the Labour vote is soft. It's the Labour grass roots movement that has collapsed. Better Together can't call on it because it isn't there.

Secondly, I don't think the majority of the pro Union vote is that fussed. Yes, given the choice, they'll vote No. But the constitutional debate is very low down their list of priorities. It doesn't stir fire in their bellies. They just don't care enough about it to stand at a stall outside shopping centres on frosty mornings.

 

[gosub]

There was a No stall at the Leith Mela , pretty much next to the Yes stall. Most of the stalls gave the impression council had rung round and was subsidizing the thing by having associated NGO's take pitches. Both Yes and No packed up early, even before high winds stopped play

 

[Sasaferrato]

It's not straightforward. The media is hotting up on the issue. More coverage, more heat.

From the start, the newspapers ranged from hostile (the Sun, the Record, the Scotsman) to sceptical, but more nuanced (the Herald). The language in the Herald, though, has been changing. It has been edging towards more favourable coverage of the issues. Whereas all the other papers frame the debate with headlines more negative towards Yes, seeing every issue as "putting pressure" on the Yes campaign, things like that, the Herald tends to be more neutral in that respect. The Herald also tends to use the word "independence", whereas the others will use "separation" and "separatism" wherever they can.

I think there is a class dimension, as Radical Indy suggest. I haven't seen polling that breaks support and opposition down by socio-economic class, so I don't know what extent that applies, but it is certainly the case that the backers of the No campaign are the big business interests, whereas the Yes campaign backers are more likely to be individual celebrities.

It's interesting to note that almost all artists, musicians, writers etc who have come out on the issue back independence. Those backing No, Dave Allen could count on one hand: Billy Connelly and James MacMillan, the composer (whose outburst about Radical Indy activists being "fascists" and "Mussolini's boot boys" was bizarre and unhinged). I think there are historic reasons why this should be, but I don't have time now.

I don't think Scots are "more socialist" or even more left wing than English voters. But there is a mythology that says so, and the point is that it's widely believed.

However, despite the Better Together campaign antagonising some with its Queen and Country style nationalism, the people it's antagonising were likely to vote Yes anyway. I can see no shift in undecideds.

It isn't a question of class, it's a question of education. It takes a reasonable level mathematical ability to decipher the data. Those who don't understand what a fucking liar Salmond is, and vote yes, will live to regret it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That's interesting. It could well be a factor in turnout. I know one thing about Better Together: it has almost no grass roots organisation. I see Yes campaigning all the time, but I've never seen Better Together do anything. I just don't think they have any activist support. That's not the same thing as voter support, but, as you say, it may play a role down the line.

Oh yes, there is support. Too early yet. I will be out supporting the NO! campaign when it is time.

 

[danny la rouge]

It isn't a question of class, it's a question of education. It takes a reasonable level mathematical ability to decipher the data. Those who don't understand what a fucking liar Salmond is, and vote yes, will live to regret it.

Supporting independence is not the same thing as supporting the SNP, or trusting Salmond.

It’s easy to see why that confusion arises. Since the start of the debate, people have been eliding the possible structure of an independent Scotland with the SNP’s manifesto for governing an independent Scotland. I fully expect the white paper today to do the same in large measure.

But the two are not the same. The UK might vote to leave the EU, but that doesn’t tell us who would be the Prime Minister.

 

[danny la rouge]

Oh yes, there is support. Too early yet. I will be out supporting the NO! campaign when it is time.

There is support for the Union. A large majority, as it happens. But there is no evidence of any grassroots organisation behind Better Together.

Maybe it's been held in abeyance, to create a false sense of security in the Yes campaign. But they've done a very good job of keeping it secret if that's the case.

 

[Quartz]

Supporting independence is not the same thing as supporting the SNP, or trusting Salmond.

Unfortunately, they are the same thing in the short term. And the SNP have the possibility to fuck it up for the long term as they would be deciding the post-independence constitution.

 

[danny la rouge]

Unfortunately, they are the same thing in the short term. And the SNP have the possibility to fuck it up for the long term as they would be deciding the post-independence constitution.

The SNP is indeed the reason there is a referendum. But should Yes win (and I would be astonished if it did), then there is no reason why an independent Scotland should forever remain in the SNP's image. Even if they write a crap constitution, it can be amended. The UK formed in 1707. There wasn't even a Prime Minister at that time! The first one came nearly two decades later, and have been many changes since Walpole's time.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh yes, there is support. Too early yet. I will be out supporting the NO! campaign when it is time.

So don't give up hope yes supporters!

 

[danny la rouge]

I edited the above post, because I initially mistakenly thought Walpole was PM after the Union of Parliaments. On checking my facts, I discover he wasn't, and that no such post existed at the time.

My point stands, though; indeed, it is the stronger for it!

 

[danny la rouge]

Here's the white paper (I think. Demand is still high, so haven't got through yet). http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

 

[danny la rouge]

Here's the white paper (I think. Demand is still high, so haven't got through yet). http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00413757.pdf

Not actually the full document. It's an 18 page summary.

 

[Quartz]

The SNP is indeed the reason there is a referendum. But should Yes win (and I would be astonished if it did), then there is no reason why an independent Scotland should forever remain in the SNP's image. Even if they write a crap constitution, it can be amended.

That's normally quite a difficult task - deliberately so.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's normally quite a difficult task - deliberately so.

Sure. But many of the questions being asked, and most of the points being made, are about SNP policy. The policy of a government. Governments change. In every country with its own parliament, governments come and go.

No tuition fees, Minimum wage to rise at least in line with inflation, Royal Mail to be returned to public ownership, No bedroom tax, even getting rid of Trident. All of these are policies that a government may or may not have. Nothing at all to do with the shape of an independent Scotland. They are SNP policy, should they be the government in that independent country.

 

[butchersapron]

Unfortunately, they are the same thing in the short term. And the SNP have the possibility to fuck it up for the long term as they would be deciding the post-independence constitution.

No they wouldn't be. Do you really think any post-independence constitution will simply be written by and then imposed by the SNP? That's not even the SNP's policy for gods sake. Following a yes vote they argue for a constitutional convention.

 

[Quartz]

Sure. But many of the questions being asked, and most of the points being made, are about SNP policy.

Granted, but to blithely assert that a constitution which would perforce be designed by the SNP could just be amended is naive.

 

[danny la rouge]

Granted, but to blithely assert that a constitution which would perforce be designed by the SNP could just be amended is naive.

First of all, the constitution would be decided post-independence. “the newly elected independent Scottish Parliament in May 2016 should convene a Constitutional Convention to draft the written constitution”.

http://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/how-would-scotland-prepare-a-written-constitution/

Will individual people be directly involved in shaping the constitution?

http://www.scotreferendum.com/quest...irectly-involved-in-shaping-the-constitution/

Secondly, what I said was that trusting the SNP and supporting independence are not one and the same.

Here's what would happen:

http://www.scotreferendum.com/repor...m-to-independence-and-a-written-constitution/

I further suggested that once a settlement is reached, things need not stand still. They never have. They didn't for the Union of Parliaments.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Unfortunately, they are the same thing in the short term. And the SNP have the possibility to fuck it up for the long term as they would be deciding the post-independence constitution.

Well, from a brief glance at the white paper, outright lies are not hard to find. 'Scotland will be in a currency union with the remainder of the UK, and the BofE will be the lender of last resort.' What a load of bollocks.

 

[Sasaferrato]

First of all, the constitution would be decided post-independence. “the newly elected independent Scottish Parliament in May 2016 should convene a Constitutional Convention to draft the written constitution”.

http://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/how-would-scotland-prepare-a-written-constitution/

Will individual people be directly involved in shaping the constitution?

http://www.scotreferendum.com/quest...irectly-involved-in-shaping-the-constitution/

Secondly, what I said was that trusting the SNP and supporting independence are not one and the same.

Here's what would happen:

http://www.scotreferendum.com/repor...m-to-independence-and-a-written-constitution/

I further suggested that once a settlement is reached, things need not stand still. They never have. They didn't for the Union of Parliaments.

I suggest that you go along to the Scottish Parliament, and listen to the semi-literate fuckwits that masquerade as MSPs. I wouldn't trust most of them to walk a dog, never mind have full control of my life. The neo-puritanism of the Scottish Nazi Party shines through on the white paper. 'We will ban, at our whim, adverts for foods WE regards as unhealthy'. What a shower of cunts.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That's normally quite a difficult task - deliberately so.

Indeed. At the time of writing the constitution, there is also scope for constituency boundary changes etc.

For Chr5istmas I want two things. 1. A 'NO!' vote in the referendum. 2. The crucifixion of the SNP in the subsequent election.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suggest that you go along to the Scottish Parliament, and listen to the semi-literate fuckwits that masquerade as MSPs. I wouldn't trust most of them to walk a dog, never mind have full control of my life.

I have been. I wouldn't agree they were "semi-literate fuckwits", nor do I think they are "masquerading as MSPs" (I think they actually are MSPs). But on the last point, I agree with you.

However, assuming that you are not an anarchist, who would you trust to be your parliamentary representatives?

Don't bother answering because...

the Scottish Nazi Party

Even allowing you have serious points to make, this makes it improssible to have a serious discussion with you.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I have been. I wouldn't agree they were "semi-literate fuckwits", nor do I think they are "masquerading as MSPs" (I think they actually are MSPs). But on the last point, I agree with you.

However, assuming that you are not an anarchist, who would you trust to be your parliamentary representatives?

Don't bother answering because...

Even allowing you have serious points to make, this makes it improssible to have a serious discussion with you.

As you wish. I have noticed that when you start to ask the pro independence lot really difficult questions, like, where is the money coming from to fund your pip-dreams, they go quiet. Even a very simple question, to which, at this point in the game, they should know the answer, 'How much will it cost to set up and run a Scottish version of HMRC?', answer there is none. This tells me that either, they know, but the cost is such, that they will not release it, or, they genuinely don't know, which is frightening. They couldn't even come up with the funds to enable them to alter the income tax rate in Scotland, something which has been within their remit since they were elected.

I loathe and despise the SNP more that I have ever despised anything in my life. They are prepared to jeopardise the well-being of the nation to follow their own political goals, irrespective of the damage done. If they win the referendum, Scotland cannot go back to being a part of the UK.

Scottish Maoist or Stalinist party would actually be more accurate.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It would be great if the English part of the No campaign could be goaded into campaigning more forcefully/publicly in Scotland. Get Cameron up there. Better still get Osbourne up to Glasgow to talk about the economic benefits

The best thing that pair can do for the NO! campaign is stay in London, and keep their mouths shut.

 

[Quartz]

Even a very simple question, to which, at this point in the game, they should know the answer, 'How much will it cost to set up and run a Scottish version of HMRC?', answer there is none.

Why bother? I'm sure the rump UK HMRC will do it - for a fee.