Will you vote for independence?

[DotCommunist]

they want you to show them though, so every cloud

 

[DotCommunist]

how the BT man could have responded and won is one thing- if it'd looked great to be crushing a cheeky young un with your skilled rhetoric is another- on a basic PR exercise anyway.

 

[danny la rouge]

So why are you making them foreigners child? Everyone a foreigner - is this the world you want to live in child?

"Are you suggesting it is impossible to share friendship, solidarity, family relations, with foreigners? - that one cannot enjoy cultural exchange with foreigners? That it is only possible to do these things with people one shares a government with? "

 

[butchersapron]

"Are you suggesting it is impossible to share friendship, solidarity, family relations, with foreigners? - that one cannot enjoy exchange culture with foreigners? That it is only possible to do these things with people one shares a government with? "

It makes it harder - when non-foreigners become foreigners. It's a foreigner making dynamic. And you nice glasgow opera types won't be driving the bus.

 

[weepiper]

you nice glasgow opera types

That's fighting talk.

 

[danny la rouge]

"Many of my cousins are foreigners now. When we meet, as we will later in the summer in Cork, there's nothing hard about getting along. We scarcely ever mention the fact that we have different governments."

 

[butchersapron]

That's fighting talk.

I note they have madama butterfly on tmw - i hope prices would be cheaper post indo.

 

[butchersapron]

"Many of my cousins are foreigners now. When we meet, as we will later in the summer in Cork, there's nothing hard about getting along. We scarcely ever mention the fact that we have different governments."

In the VIP area right?

 

[danny la rouge]

In the VIP area right?

You mean where Kanye and Kim went on honeymoon? No, East Cork. Youghal.

 

[DairyQueen]

So why are you making them foreigners child? Everyone a foreigner - is this the world you want to live in child?

You are not getting obsessed with modern nation-states are you? England will be no less or no more foreign to Scotland than it already is. That could change over time with or without independence.

 

[danny la rouge]

You are not getting obsessed with modern nation-states are you? England will be no less or no more foreign to Scotland than it already is. That could change over time with or without independence.

He's being a hypothetical Tory panelist who had thought of a reply to the kid in the audience. (That's why he was using italics).

 

[steeplejack]

boring contrarian more like

 

[steeplejack]

anyway, Salmond will debate with Darling, as it is obvious Cameron will not budge from his refusal to enter the debate.

A bit like Liverpool taking on Ebbsfleet United at Anfield in the cup, really. No contest.

 

[geminisnake]

I really don't see the point in Eck debating with Darling. Blair should debate with him, not Eck.

 

[danny la rouge]

anyway, Salmond will debate with Darling, as it is obvious Cameron will not budge from his refusal to enter the debate.

A bit like Liverpool taking on Ebbsfleet United at Anfield in the cup, really. No contest.

If Darling wants to debate with somebody, it should be his opposite number from Yes, which is Dennis Canavan, the Yes Scotland chair. However, since Cameron won't debate with Salmond (because he says "it's for Scots to decide", although that doesn't stop him chipping in from the sidelines), and the TV channels want Salmond on, I don't see why he shouldn't debate with anyone willing to take him on.

But if it's about opposite numbers debating - the (very boring) Chief Exec of Yes Scotland, Blair Jenkins, would debate with Better Together (or No Thanks, or "I Don't Think I Will, Actually" or whatever they're called this week) Director, Blair McDougall. But nobody would watch.

Or if it's the chairs of both camps, that's Darling vs Canavan.

Or UK State vs Putative Scottish State, that's Cameron vs Salmond.

 

[DairyQueen]

YouGov had a new Scottish referendum poll in this morning’s Sun – tabs are now up on the website here. The headline referendum voting figures are 36%(-1) for YES, 53%(+2) for NO, changes are from YouGov’s last poll in April. Excluding don’t knows this works out at YES 40%, NO 60%.

The changes are within the margin of error from April, so don’t read too much into the movement to NO. More notable is what it doesn’t show – the recent Survation, Panelbase and ICM polls showed movement to YES (albeit, the ICM one was probably reversion to the mean), so it’s notable that YouGov aren’t showing the same. The wider picture of Scottish referendum polling remains that what movement there is in voting intention is so slow that it is hard to discern beneath normal random variation, and right now it is difficult to be certain whether there is still a drift towards YES or whether things have stagnated. There also remains a substantial and difficult to explain difference between the figures from different pollsters, one I doubt will be resolved until the votes are counted.

If the topline figures here will be a relief to the NO campaign, the rest of the poll is a much more mixed picture. The Yes Scotland campaign is seen as the more positive of the two campaigns – more people think it has been positive than negative, while people are more likely to view the Better Together campaign as negative than positive. However, the Better Together campaign is seen as having been mostly honest (by 40% to 34%), the Yes Scotland campagn mostly dishonest (by 42% to 35%).

On the question of a televised debate, the Scottish public would much prefer to see a debate between Alex Salmond and David Cameron (48%) than between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling (21%). Finally Yes Scotland seem to have a substantial advantage in the ground war – something you see claimed anecdotally, but it’s nice to have evidence to prove it. 49% of people recalled being contacted by Yes Scotland over the last few weeks compared to only 38% saying they’ve been contacted by Better Together.

650 out canvassing today across Scotland with RIC.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Odd afternoon in the local. It's a proper pub pub, right old mix, and not given much to politics. Someone started a chat about the indy ref, and well, it didn't go like I thought it might. It was overwhelmingly "No" for what it's worth (nothing, I know). It just surprised me really that it was so heavily one sided.

/shit contribution to thread

 

[Quartz]

It was overwhelmingly "No" for what it's worth (nothing, I know). It just surprised me really that it was so heavily one sided.

Would you care to share why?

 

[DairyQueen]

The folk I know, it is usually people uninterested in politics (that don't like the SNP and/or are British nationalists), total bampots that are a little bit racist/sectarian, folk that have a family connection to Labour, and conservatives.

I really do think Scottish politics will become nastier in the event of a no, and probably a little right-wing. It is pretty sad that people like Quartz are going to force people like Peter Hitchens on 5 million people.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Would you care to share why?

I wasn't transcribing everyone's arguments. It's just an anecdote, one that surprised me a bit - it's a drinkers pub that is usually more interested in the horses of an afternoon.

 

[weepiper]

'Lawyers for Yes' launched today. Over a hundred QCs, academics, advocates and solicitors signed up to it already. Their declaration is interesting

In its Yes Declaration, the group states that a Yes vote will give Scotland an "enviable opportunity to draft a constitution which articulates the shared aspirations and values of the people who live in Scotland and protects fundamental rights, the separation of powers and the rule of law".

Lawyers for Yes adds: "Furthermore it is our belief that an independent Scotland would preserve the right of access to justice of all people who live in this country."

"Both the UK and the Scottish governments have affirmed that Scotland can exercise its right to self-determination and we see no fundamental legal obstacles to Scotland forming a democratic independent state internationally accepted as such.

"Such a state would have the same power over its land and seas, and the same power to decide its laws and policies in the interests of its people as determined by its people, as other states in the European Union. It would, we believe, be in the interests of the people of Scotland to choose such a future."

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.ph...gal-experts-sign-up-to-new-yes-campaign-group

 

[weepiper]

 

[two sheds]

Independent Scotland's startup costs 'could be as little as £200m'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million

New headed notepaper.

 

[weepiper]

Independent Scotland's startup costs 'could be as little as £200m'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million

New headed notepaper.

Sounds ok. We spend that on the royals in a year.

 

[Quartz]

Sounds ok. We spend that on the royals in a year.

That's for the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, and from a highly biased site; Scotland's share would be ~£17M. Anyway, £200M is ~£40 for every person (adult or child). That would be £160 for you. (And I'm glad to infer that you're now prospering and off benefits.)

 

[weepiper]

That's for the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, and from a highly biased site; Scotland's share would be ~£17M. Anyway, £200M is ~£40 for every person (adult or child). That would be £160 for you. (And I'm glad to infer that you're now prospering and off benefits.)

wtf? I'm not 'off benefits' and unlikely to be for some years yet, despite having been in part-time work for 5 years now. And I'll gladly pay £160 to get independence.

 

[DairyQueen]

That's for the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, and from a highly biased site; Scotland's share would be ~£17M. Anyway, £200M is ~£40 for every person (adult or child). That would be £160 for you. (And I'm glad to infer that you're now prospering and off benefits.)

Classic Quartz, £200 million is pocket change. That is why the Treasury claimed it would cost billions.

As for the "off benefits" remark, just have a modicum of self-respect. Where do you work? Who's paying your salary? Are you contributing to the tax base? I ask, of course, out of empathy - just want to make sure you're doing alright.

 

[DexterTCN]

... (And I'm glad to infer that you're now prospering and off benefits.)

You're not inferring it, there is nothing in her post to infer that. The opposite, in fact, is what you're implying.

And it's offensive.

 

[weepiper]

You're not inferring it, there is nothing in her post to infer that. The opposite, in fact, is what you're implying.

And it's offensive.

Cheers. I'm glad it's not just me.

 

[DairyQueen]

Now he will disappear, pop his head up in the next discussion with some pointless trolling comment that he can't bothered defending properly and no doubt claim "yes supporters never answer a question" whenever he gets the opportunity.