Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5

[mcdjl]

Edinburger said:

Interesting analysis.

So if I told you that I know a very successful company where just over 80% of the partners (all earning £150K-£350K) are in favour of Yes, would that surprise you?

Not if you told me that they were all consultants to the Scottish government or some other business that would do very well (accountants etc) from the break up.

[mcdjl]

Edinburger said:

No - I think both campaigns are severley lacking in credibility, content and strategy. The people of Scotland deserve much better than this.

Are they both equally lacking in those as far as you're concerned? Have either (or both) sides spent £40,000 trying to keep advice from the EU (which turned out not exist) secret? If only one do you think that side might lack more credibility than the other?
If one side said that setting up new departments would cost at least £1billion, and the other side said, no its only £200m. Which would be more credible? What if the side that said its only £200m later said that it wasn't counting the £1b investment needed to set up those departments? Which would lack the credibility then?

[gofasterrosssco]

nellyleelephant said:

Edinburger said:

Interesting analysis.

So if I told you that I know a very successful company where just over 80% of the partners (all earning £150K-£350K) are in favour of Yes, would that surprise you?

I know a couple of people in that wage bracket, I wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoe laces.

And people in this wage bracket are less likely to feel the potentially negative effects of independance I would argue..

[anonymous-user]

Edinburger said:

Rick_1138 said:

Its frightening the impact all this Is having though.

I had a workplace audit the other day and the auditior was telling me of an audit in the west coast and when sat down was asked "So! Are you a yes or a No?" the reply was a Yes after wondering weather or not to mention politics (Its never a good plan in an audit).

This seemed to be the correct answer as they made a plasma cut out YES that the auditor could take away!

However this made me very hesitant to mention anything about the ref as I am a pretty staunch no, and I felt it could actually have an effect on the result of how the audit went, and that's madness that business can be affected by this tripe.

A few friends of mine are for the Yes vote and its noticeable they are becoming odd with me and my no voting friends, which I hate as we have been good friends for years .

The one thing I have noticed through all of this is that the majority of Yes voters seem to be those who feel hard done by, in a low paying job, have issues meaning they could be on some form of benefit or self employed people who are doing well and feel that they can carry on come what may as they are enterprising persons, and the independence in Scotland can only mean more opportunities, the same being true of those stuck in a rut, they feel a change could mean they finally get that 'break' they are hoping for. Sadly I feel under an iScotland, it would be the same st, different day with less money and more shouting.

We shall see in September!

Interesting analysis.

So if I told you that I know a very successful company where just over 80% of the partners (all earning £150K-£350K) are in favour of Yes, would that surprise you?

I don't believe that's true, actually. Prove it.

If you do I will name some equally successful business people who are dreading a yes vote and can't believe enough people are stupid enough to fall for Salmond' s lies.

[barryrs]

Edinburger said:

barryrs said:

Edinburger said:

So no one realised my earlier poat was facetious? No one remembers all the posters questioning the funding of the SG's White Paper when that was published?

Dear oh dear.

Trouble is the White paper comes across as a party manifesto whereas the treasury paper is a government paper designed to assess the impact of independence rather than use as a BT campaign tool.

Of course - one is a proposal for change and one is for maintenance of the status quo! Jeez!

So your opinion of the treasury paper is that it has been produced for maintenance of the status quo?

You must support the SNP view that costing the separation is pointless then?

Im happy that the treasury have produced this paper, as to ignore the potential impact independence will have on the rUK would be lunacy.

Im perfectly happy for the Scottish government to be a shambles post a yes vote; that's their choice however I would be extremely disappointed if Westminster took that path.

[321freeflow]

I'm puzzled by Edinburger's support for the SNP government. Far from being a good thing for the country, they seem intent on ignoring democracy and imposing their will on everything.
They've over-ruled local planning officials on windfarms, housing developments, power lines/sub-stations. Any developer knows if they're knocked back by a council, just get in touch with Holyrood - job done and fk the people. So much for the Scottish people will decide.
So many chickens coming home to roost now. They've managed to upset everyone on something - quite a feat for any government.
The A9 debacle - 27 average-speed cameras over 118 miles - just what's required
Windfarms ruining our beautiful wild spaces - so much opposition to this that the SG are back-tracking spectacularly and promising to protect national parks - too late.
NHS - as we lead the world in obesity, heart/liver disease etc etc spend per head in Scotland is twice the UK average. The whole edifice is collapsing, with vital treatment for cancer patients being delayed, A&E missing targets, serious shortage of trained nurses and doctors.
Education - shortage of trained teachers. Funding cuts mean schools going without basic textbooks and even pencils/jotters! The Curriculum for Excellence with its emphasis on "Scottishness" is a shambles and pupils are missing out on core work.
The recent Scottish Social Attitudes survey shows that the number of voters who believe the Scottish Government gives ordinary people more say in how Scotland is governed fell from 60 per cent in 2011 to 46 per cent in 2013. Their trust in Holyrood fell from 71 per cent in 2011 to 59 per cent in 2013.
Only 3 months to the referendum and the SG is failing on the basics. Yes, there will be a lot of voters using their heart on the day but there's a damned sight more will using their heid.

[NoNeed]

Trollburger said:

NoNeed said:

Rollin said:

The nats will believe whatever people like Salmond or the bloke from Bath tell them without any questioning. It gives them something to hide behind rather than having to admit that they just have an irrational hatred for anything English.

Corrected that for you

After all this time and debate you still think that this is all about a hatred for the English? That's so sad.

A few days ago I was sat in a bar in Lanzarote watching England play while a very loud group of Scots about ten in number were supporting Uruguay.


So Just fk off with your it's not anti-English bks and try to explain that to the hundreds of English that have suffered violent attacks just because of their accent.

[toppstuff]

Edinburger said:

toppstuff said:

OpulentBob said:

For the time being.

Given that the Weir groups analysis points to Scotland having to impose a severe austerity programme to make the maths of independence work, even Burgers padded and secure job for life looks shaky to me.

It's amazing that no one on the Yes side seems to want King Alex to tell the truth, lest they don't like what they hear.

Isn't it interesting how different people and self-proclaimed experts have such different views on whether or not the economics of independence could work? Why is that, do you think?

You are absolutely right.

You seem to be a bright enough chap. Go and look at the body of evidence and the people behind it. Then make your mind up.

Your perspective of the debate here is a bit skewed, mind you. You no doubt think that this thread is populated with people committed to the Union, who are anti-independence. This belief is absolutely wrong.

This thread has a lot of people who are interested in the debate, don't have anything invested in it and, frankly, don't believe the outcome will affect their lives much. This therefore gives people the freedom to get informed and take an independent, unbiased view. When the people on this thread do their research, it is very hard to not conclude that the Yes vote is based on a complete lack of proper research, a lack of honesty and transparency, and no proper answers to the big questions.

Having established that there are few sound economic arguments articulated by the Scottish Government that stand up to proper scrutiny, we then try to seek an understanding as to why on earth people like you would either vote Yes, or be undecided. It makes no logical sense. This is why the subjects of "racism" or "hating the English" crop up - simply because people can't figure out any other reason to vote for something that it so illogical.

When a large body of people ( with no vested interests at all ) look at a situation with bafflement, scratching their heads at the sheer illogicality of it, perplexed by how people can possibly NOT ask the big questions that are staring them in the face; don't you think that this might tell you something? Don't you think THAT is interesting?

[Funk]

steveatesh said:

The Weir group article is well worth reading especially if you are undecided, as pointed out earlier by ajd,

http://scot-buzz.co.uk/business-economy/keith-coch...

Th

ANYONE reading that and then voting yes needs their head examined.

Voting yes is voting for the painful demise of Scotland.

[toppstuff]

Funk said:

steveatesh said:

The Weir group article is well worth reading especially if you are undecided, as pointed out earlier by ajd,

http://scot-buzz.co.uk/business-economy/keith-coch...

Th

ANYONE reading that and then voting yes needs their head examined.

Yes. Unequivocally,

[bodhi]

NoNeed said:

A few days ago I was sat in a bar in Lanzarote watching England play while a very loud group of Scots about ten in number were supporting Uruguay.


So Just fk off with your it's not anti-English bks and try to explain that to the hundreds of English that have suffered violent attacks just because of their accent.

To be fair, the whole "Support anyone playing England" used to be banter imo, nothing particularly sinister behind it, just us enjoying winding you guys up - a bit of fun, nothing more. Sadly, since Sir King Lord Salmond of Scotlandshire started his anti-UK rhetoric, it seems to have taken on a sinister edge, and as a result, I've stayed well out of it this time round.

In fact that's how I saw the whole England /Scotland thing, two countries that worked bloody well together, but enjoyed ripping the piss where possible - kind of the British way. Salmond appears to have ruined that, and that is one of the many ways he's made the UK a worse place.

Think he forgets that most of the achievements we Scots are (quite rightly) very proud of, were mostly done when we were part of the UK. Before that, we were only really notable for being at war with each other the whole time (Scotland itself, not England/Scotland). I, for one, am glad Salmond has dragged us back 400 years....

[NoNeed]

bodhi said:

NoNeed said:

A few days ago I was sat in a bar in Lanzarote watching England play while a very loud group of Scots about ten in number were supporting Uruguay.


So Just fk off with your it's not anti-English bks and try to explain that to the hundreds of English that have suffered violent attacks just because of their accent.

To be fair, the whole "Support anyone playing England" used to be banter imo, nothing particularly sinister behind it, just us enjoying winding you guys up - a bit of fun, nothing more. Sadly, since Sir King Lord Salmond of Scotlandshire started his anti-UK rhetoric, it seems to have taken on a sinister edge, and as a result, I've stayed well out of it this time round.

In fact that's how I saw the whole England /Scotland thing, two countries that worked bloody well together, but enjoyed ripping the piss where possible - kind of the British way. Salmond appears to have ruined that, and that is one of the many ways he's made the UK a worse place.

Think he forgets that most of the achievements we Scots are (quite rightly) very proud of, were mostly done when we were part of the UK. Before that, we were only really notable for being at war with each other the whole time (Scotland itself, not England/Scotland). I, for one, am glad Salmond has dragged us back 400 years....

I can't disagree there at all. Followed football all my life so I do know all about banter, sadly there is a new line where banter ends and hostilities start.

The tartan army was always fun to watch,see and be around, now it's turned ugly.

[andymadmak]

Edinburger said:

After all this time and debate you still think that this is all about a hatred for the English? That's so sad.

Well I agree that it's been a lot of time, but I absolutely disagree with the notion that there has been "all this debate". Indeed I would go so far as to say "what debate?".

From where I am sitting this is not a debate. A debate would usually encompass an informed exchange of opinions and facts to support those opinions. The debate would normally lead to a conclusion based on a rational assessment of all the evidence provided.

What do we have in Scotland?

Well, one side seems to be able to say pretty much what it wants, do what it wants and all without the need for evidence or credible supporting data.
The other side then gets lambasted for saying anything that differs from the above, regardless of whether what is said is backed by credible sources or data, research, analysis, or even whether the people making the statements are 100% qualified so to do!

It's not a debate, it's an exercise in not listening. An exercise in sticking fingers in ears and yelling lalalalala. Yes, you have guessed it, it's the Yes camp doing this.

Why do I say this?

Well, compare and contrast the S Govt white paper with the Westminster document. One is full of assumptions and figures that, really, in all honesty, simply don't stack up, or are at best a wish list of aspirations without substance or strategy for their attainment. Wish lists sound and look great. They are immensely appealing, and if you can make your wish list look superficially at least like something that will be delivered then you're onto a winner for many people, not least because no one will want to get into the killer detail (I say killer, because it's the detail that kills the ability to deliver on the wish list) or accept that one persons YES vote inspired desire for a "tax the rich egalitarian nirvana" is at odds with the other YES voters "low tax land of opportunity and business".
I'd personally like world peace, a cure for aids and cancer and a free Aston Martin, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. That being said, if I felt that someone was possibly offering me this in exchange for my vote I'd probably overlook some of his other shortcomings and vote accordingly..... That is human nature.

The difficult detail is precisely what the NO camp want people to consider. The realities rather than the wishes. The Yes camp know that they cannot, must not, let the debate get that far. Yes camp has to stick with dreams and aspirations, backed up with JUST enough detail to allow it's supporters to stand behind it even if that detail simply does not stand up to any scrutiny. There is no debate, on the clash of dreams against reality.
For the old, the sick, the poor , the young and even the rich of Scotland, It is to be hoped that reality wins the day before the vote, because one thing is absolutely for sure is that reality WILL impact massively afterwards, the moreso if the vote is YES.
(Cue accusations of scaremongering from the yes camp - further evidence in my opinion of their complete lack of ability to engage with the killer details).

Let me add one more thing for the Yessers to consider: I am a proud Brit. A Yorkshireman by birth, Englishman by accent and British in my ancestry, attitudes and history.
I love the entirety of MY country. I love that I know about cultures as diverse as those in the Scottish highlands and the fishing communities of Cornwall. My favourite comedian is a Welshman and I'll happily wave the green flag of ireland when my cousins are on the field of play. As a Brit, I own a bit of all that wonderful stuff. Wec all do. That's what being British lets us do. We can be proud of what and who we are at all levels. The Royal Navy ended the global slave trade, our language is the mother tongue of the planet for business and culture, as a nation we invented most of the games worth playing and many of the industrial and consumer goods that make our lives today. Our humour makes the world laugh, our music makes the world sing and our accents, (all of them ) perplex, mystify and delight.
I do not want to see that wrecked.

BUT. If you vote Yes Scotland, be under no illusion, you are voting to be on your own. Thats not a threat, it's a reality. It is what you are voting for. I have no doubt you can make it, albeit at some cost, but I am also in no doubt that I will expect my Government to do everything it can to ensure that those costs are not born by me or my fellow rUK Brits to ANY degree. You want it you pay for it. Don't expect any favours, and you will not be disappointed. Reap what you sow, good and bad, but do not assume there is any way back, any safety net or that any quarter will be given. You've insulted, assaulted and tried to humiliate the rest of your family in your efforts to secure your "freedom". There was no need for you to do that, but that you did it anyway will bear a heavy price in the future.

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 25th June 12:39

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 25th June 12:40

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 25th June 12:41

[NoNeed]

From facebook.

[spitsfire]

Edinburger said:

Well, that's an opinionated and subjective point of view.

£1.25m on 'on production, delivery and advertising fees': It's been argued that the White Paper is 'contrary to principles of international law': And even the Leftie New Statesman stuck the boot in, calling it "a piece of fantasy economics".

In other words, it's a crock of st.

[HenryJM]

Edinburger said:

Isn't it interesting how different people and self-proclaimed experts have such different views on whether or not the economics of independence could work? Why is that, do you think?

It isn't true. Show us any respected economist who has a positive view on how the economics of independence would work.

[Moonhawk]

skyrover said:

Scotland to scrap "Right to Buy"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

welcome to the socialist republic

They are going to scrap a 1959 Labour manifesto pledge...... doesn't sound very 'left wing'

[simoid]

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

Isn't it interesting how different people and self-proclaimed experts have such different views on whether or not the economics of independence could work? Why is that, do you think?

It isn't true. Show us any respected economist who has a positive view on how the economics of independence would work.

I think there's plenty of economists who say that independence can work.

However, they all point out the great sacrifices that would have to be made, as well as the uncertainties over the future. Apart from the nationalists, of course.

It's not in their interest to be remotely honest about the costs of downsides of leaving the UK, or even acknowledge the existence of said 'cons'. See fluffnik's outright denial of any possible downsides to independence for a prime example. Even when faced with irrefutable FACTS showing an advantage of the United Kingdom, he dismissed them. Ridiculous.

[Gogoplata]

NoNeed said:

From facebook.

He never actually held the title "Editor" of Amiga Power.

[Borghetto]

NoNeed said:

From facebook.

I doubt this prize arse will return to his beloved homeland in the event of a Yes vote. More's the pity.