Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Troubleatmill]

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

It has nothing to do with regions.

The rules were simple.
The winner needed 1,809,958 to win.
YES got 1,617,989
NO got 2,001,926

NO won.

Anything else is a distraction. Although the electorate breakdown by region is interesting - it is meaningless.

Example: If every single person in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, North & South Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire votes YES. And every other person in the other regions voted NO
Then YES would win.
But they would only have 6 green regions in an ocean of bright red.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

http://www.visitscotland.com/about/history/timelin...

I'm sure tourists to Scotland can't wait to find out about important events in Scottish history, such as:

1945 first SNP (for 3 months until they had a proper election)

1980s thatcher oppressing scotland & closing its industry
(but it boosts the independence movement)

2014 A referendum on Scottish independence is held, with 55 percent of the electorate voting to remain part of the UK
(you can sense the gritted teeth as this was reluctantly bashed out on the keyboard in the most unflattering way)

Presumably the creation of the NHS and welfare state are not notable events.

Creation of the NHS and of the welfare state weren't Scottish events though.

Wasn't their creation a fantastic event in Scotland, still revered as a principle around the world?
If that is not worth mentioning, why on earth bore a foreign visitor with a short lived UK wide change in tax legislation that just happened to be piloted in Scotland first?

The tourist board has been politicised in a most crass and shambolic way. In a way that tries to slag off wider Britain. It is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed, it is cringe worthy.




PS going by that chart, Orkney weren't very keen on SNP independence were they? Isn't that where all the oil is?

It's a tourist organisation. Have you every looked at the material spouted out by the Welsh, Northern Irish and English equivalents? It's all crass.

[McWigglebum4th]

Edinburger said:

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

BUT

we are told by the SNP if one of the 4 nations that make up the UK don't vote to leave the EU then the entire UK should stay in the EU


Surely it must be exactly the same for scotland leaving the UK

Or is that different?

[Edinburger]

Troubleatmill said:

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

It has nothing to do with regions.

The rules were simple.
The winner needed 1,809,958 to win.
YES got 1,617,989
NO got 2,001,926

NO won.

Anything else is a distraction. Although the electorate breakdown by region is interesting - it is meaningless.

Example: If every single person in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, North & South Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire votes YES. And every other person in the other regions voted NO
Then YES would win.
But they would only have 6 green regions in an ocean of bright red.

Exactly - well said

[toppstuff]

Troubleatmill said:

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

It has nothing to do with regions.

The rules were simple.
The winner needed 1,809,958 to win.
YES got 1,617,989
NO got 2,001,926

NO won.

Anything else is a distraction. Although the electorate breakdown by region is interesting - it is meaningless.

Example: If every single person in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, North & South Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire votes YES. And every other person in the other regions voted NO
Then YES would win.
But they would only have 6 green regions in an ocean of bright red.

Yeah, I agree with that.

It does not really matter how you cut it, the vote was unequivocally No. Given the oil price, I think Scotland had a fortunate break.

[Edinburger]

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

It has nothing to do with regions.

The rules were simple.
The winner needed 1,809,958 to win.
YES got 1,617,989
NO got 2,001,926

NO won.

Anything else is a distraction. Although the electorate breakdown by region is interesting - it is meaningless.

Example: If every single person in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, North & South Lanarkshire and Aberdeenshire votes YES. And every other person in the other regions voted NO
Then YES would win.
But they would only have 6 green regions in an ocean of bright red.

Yeah, I agree with that.

It does not really matter how you cut it, the vote was unequivocally No. Given the oil price, I think Scotland had a fortunate break.

Aye, no-one's arguing with the fact the vote was unequivocally No. Thankfully.

[HenryJM]

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

As it's panto season - oh no it doesn't!

And well you know it

I know that the constituencies who voted red, something like 28 of them, all voted against independence. 4 favoured in favour.

That graph shows it, it even shows you the ones in red that were more anti it than others.

So why do you call it a 'Panto season'? Why do you think it does anything other than the reflect of the results?

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

Well it's obviously something you are trying to make out as of no relevance. You may think I am merely stated it for a laugh, you can't be more wrong.

Independence was in favour to the poorer end of societies in the part of Scotland that are not prosperous, Glasgow the 'jobless capital', Dundee the 'worst performing city' of the UK. 15 out of 32 constituencies were more against the first supporter in Dundee. Given the political divide it would be interesting if independent voters in a small central part of Scotland proved enough to ever win it, a large population in a small geography in an un positive part of the country.

[Wombat3]

Edinburger said:

Wombat3 said:

Edinburger said:

Surprise, surprise...as also discussed.,,

Newly-released cabinet papers from Margaret Thatcher's time in power have confirmed that then Scottish Secretary George Younger pushed for the poll tax to be introduced early in Scotland.

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

Correct because (IIRC) there was an impending rate rise due in Scotland which would in itself have been highly unpopular (though that does not mean unwarranted or unfair).

At the same time there has never been any suggestion or evidence to suggest that the roll out of the community charge in the rest of the UK was in any way dependent upon what happened in Scotland. It was always going to be introduced across the country as indeed it was. Scotland just went first. So what?

Therefore the fact that Scotland got it a year early is a complete non issue, a red herring and a MASSIVE case of playing the victim card (as usual).

Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 30th December 01:48

Oh yeah? From the article: Mr Younger was "extremely keen to use Scotland as a trail blazer for the pure residence charge".

Correct, for the reason I outlined - there was a rate rise due in Scotland - it was going to be one or the other.

Also correct is what I said, there was never any suggestion that the rest of the UK might not get the community charge(and we all did) and there was never any suggestion that whether the rest of the UK got it was conditional on what happened in Scotland.

You got it a year earlier, so fking what?

Put your victim card away!

(and try & remember that there are some who still consider it to have been the absolute fairest form of local taxation anyway!)

Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 30th December 11:43

[Edinburger]

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

As it's panto season - oh no it doesn't!

And well you know it

I know that the constituencies who voted red, something like 28 of them, all voted against independence. 4 favoured in favour.

That graph shows it, it even shows you the ones in red that were more anti it than others.

So why do you call it a 'Panto season'? Why do you think it does anything other than the reflect of the results?

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

Well it's obviously something you are trying to make out as of no relevance. You may think I am merely stated it for a laugh, you can't be more wrong.

Independence was in favour to the poorer end of societies in the part of Scotland that are not prosperous, Glasgow the 'jobless capital', Dundee the 'worst performing city' of the UK. 15 out of 32 constituencies were more against the first supporter in Dundee. Given the political divide it would be interesting if independent voters in a small central part of Scotland proved enough to ever win it, a large population in a small geography in an un positive part of the country.

Oh, for heaven's sake - you're making it out to be a class thing? Jeez.

Please tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor. And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

As everyone knows, both Yes and No voters came from all areas of society. Millionares voted both ways. Paupers voted both ways.

And that's all there is to it.

[Troubleatmill]

Edinburger said:

Oh, for heaven's sake - you're making it out to be a class thing? Jeez.

Please tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor. And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

As everyone knows, both Yes and No voters came from all areas of society. Millionares voted both ways. Paupers voted both ways.

And that's all there is to it.

If you saw the second Darling/ Salmond debate on the topic of old age pensions. ( And many pensioners and those nearing retirement are not wealthy )

You could actually see the penny drop in the audience when Darling said... There isn't a big pot of pension money. The pensions being paid out now are coming from the taxes from those in work.
If Scotland goes it alone - you have a large ageing population and a reducing work force. You either get less money - or taxes go up.

That one point - probably had the biggest impact for a lot of folks on lower incomes or retired.

[HenryJM]

Edinburger said:

Oh, for heaven's sake - you're making it out to be a class thing? Jeez.

Please tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor. And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

As everyone knows, both Yes and No voters came from all areas of society. Millionares voted both ways. Paupers voted both ways.

And that's all there is to it.

So you really think that the prosperity and situation doesn't impact on how they will vote and be influenced? So regardless of living with no job in a high job rate environment isn't going to import on their views?

How quaint - and incredibly naive.

[Edinburger]

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

Oh, for heaven's sake - you're making it out to be a class thing? Jeez.

Please tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor. And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

As everyone knows, both Yes and No voters came from all areas of society. Millionares voted both ways. Paupers voted both ways.

And that's all there is to it.

So you really think that the prosperity and situation doesn't impact on how they will vote and be influenced? So regardless of living with no job in a high job rate environment isn't going to import on their views?

How quaint - and incredibly naive.

Before I answer that please answer this:

Tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor.

And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

[HenryJM]

Edinburger said:

Before I answer that please answer this:

Tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor.

And what's the "political divide" you refer to?

Is Google beyond you? Just type in stuff like jobless capital Glasgow, it's not hard.

[toppstuff]

Edinburger said:

Before I answer that please answer this:

Tell me why you think Glasgow is the 'jobless capital' and why you think Dundee is the 'worst performing city'? You're making a lot of generalisations there. Some areas of Glasgow are very wealthy for instance, in the same way some areas of London (or virtually any other city in the world) are very poor.

In fairness, I think there are statistics to support these claims, taking the average for a cities population.

I think Glasgow is also statistically the worst in terms of public health and life expectancy as well, isn't it?

[technodup]

toppstuff said:

In fairness, I think there are statistics to support these claims, taking the average for a cities population.

I think Glasgow is also statistically the worst in terms of public health and life expectancy as well, isn't it?

I read very recently that Nottingham (and maybe Liverpool?) have overtaken it in unemployment terms. But it's a well documented sthole, ranking high (or low) in terms of health, life expectancy, drug dependency, homicides, knife crime, etc etc.

Lots of the better areas, Bearsden, Giffnock, Mearns etc aren't actually within the city boundary so are counted in their own council areas (East Ren, East Dun), leaving (the genuine, not Partick etc) west end, a few Merchant City types and half of Pollokshields to fly the flag for the 'protect what we've got' side. Given the rest of the city is a hole it's no surprise to me it voted for a fairytale future.

[Garvin]

toppstuff said:

. . . . . . . It does not really matter how you cut it, the vote was unequivocally No. Given the oil price, I think Scotland had a fortunate break.

I don't think it was fortunate per se, I think it was down to the majority of voters making a rationale and, IMHO, sensible decision based on an objective assessment of the information available. However, that may all be for nowt if Scotland elect a majority of SNP MPs in the forthcoming GE - that will almost certainly be taken by the SNP, despite the result of the referendum, as a mandate for independence inexorably driving ever more divisivness unless and until the SNP are subsequently relieved of power.

[hornetrider]

Katie Hopkins cuts through the BS.

[hornetrider]

[NoNeed]

I'm stating to warm to Katie Hopkins

[Welshbeef]

ROFLOL katie what a great shot over the bow to those pesky Indy voters.






She has a very valid point though .....any Indy yes votes going to go onto her tweets?