The Referendum Thread

[groucho]

Wee message to our resident Troll .

So to not be accused of any of above, can anybody help him find the youtube clip he said he would dig out. Anybody!

[Stuart Dickson]

And you reckon using 1000 to predict what the best part of 3 to 4 million voters will do is an less error prone?

Yes. You're supposed to be a scientist. Clearly the larger the sample group the more accurate your results become.

There's a margin of error of up to 6% on a normal poll with 1000 people polled. I'd hate to think just how massive the margin of error would be on one where less than 150 were polled. Thats like me asking around my workmates FFS.

[groucho]

Interesting article

http://sainscot.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/from-project-fear-to-project-panic/

"Ask yourself, would anybody in their right mind completely change their campaign message and logo with just one hundred days to go if they had a commanding lead and a successful campaign? If you think they would, I have a pink elephant wearing an ermine robe I would like to sell you."

Edited June 14, 2014 by groucho

[Stuart Dickson]

I reckon if you took Salmond out the picture it would be a walkover.I dont read too much into polls but the majority of people i speak to are voting yes and i,m talking around 70%.The poll on this website suggests similar numbers or maybe its just to get at you Stuart.

I reckon if you took Salmond out of the picture and replaced him with Jim Sillars you may well have been right. Sillars comes across as far more personable and far more honest - even if it means debunking his own cause from time to time. Unfortunately for Independence supporters through the SNP has opted to sideline Sillars and his late wife, no doubt for political reasons far more closely aligned to Salmond wanting to hold onto power than anything to do with personal beliefs.

There was an online article somewhere last night - it might have been in the Herald or the Scotsman - that reflected on the fact that it appears to be a trend that those who intend to vote no won't be anywhere near as vocal about it as those who will vote Yes. It said that often it was usually that way because those who were voting No didn't want to spark off the usual heated rubbish that comes out of the mouths of those who will vote Yes. I read the article and understood immediately where it was coming from. On Wednesday night I was out at a restaurant with my girlfriend and two of her friends. One of them is a passionate Nationalist. During dinner she made some sort of comment about Independence and the three of us looked at each other. She caught the look and said "you're not all voting No are you?". Each of us said we were and said we didn't want to ruin dinner by discussing it. She took the hint and dropped it.

What I find is that most of the people in my social groups are voting No. They tend to be parents with kids and they tend to be the kind of people who believe they have a lot to lose if they make the wrong choice. The only exception to that rule that I can think of off the top of my head is a guy who is a fireman who's been frustrated by what he sees as Westminster cuts in the fire service. I take a football team of young lads, many of them will be entitled to vote this September and will be voting for the first time. As far as I know only one of the 21 is planning to vote Yes. Where I notice a different trend is amongst those who are around my age, who are childless and single. Almost every one of them has said they are voting Yes or they've flagged their Facebook account or whatever.

[groucho]

Dicko ......." those who were voting No didn't want to spark off the usual heated rubbish that comes out of the mouths of those who will vote Yes".

Unlike the people who are voting no eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

Edited June 14, 2014 by groucho

[Stuart Dickson]

Dicko ......." those who were voting No didn't want to spark off the usual heated rubbish that comes out of the mouths of those who will vote Yes".

Unlike the people who are voting no eh ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmGjiokfQ2A

I don't know any ex Rangers fans but if I did I wouldn't talk to them about the referendum either cause it would be a dull discussion.

[smcc]

I don't know any ex Rangers fans but if I did I wouldn't talk to them about the referendum either cause it would be a dull discussion.

Missing the point again, Stuart?

[salmonbuddie]

lack the

Commonsense

Had to edit, oaky, sorry. Edited June 14, 2014 by salmonbuddie

[davidg]

Anybuddie else think it was a great idea to hold the referendum on World Cup year?

All the maybe people will defo vote yes after listening to the usual crap.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The further England go in the tournament, the better for the Yes campaign. Unfortunately, after last night's result this might not be much of an advantage...

Edited June 15, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[Stuart Dickson]

Anybuddie else think it was a great idea to hold the referendum on World Cup year?

All the maybe people will defo vote yes after listening to the usual crap.

"Great idea"? No. But I do think it was a consideration in the choice of date for the referendum. I agree with the crux of your point though, for some people in Scotland the World Cup will bring usually suppressed xenophobic emotions to the fore and it could well influence the outcome of the referendum

[shull]

Alex Salmond is presently taking questions from punters nationwide.

Catch it on Clyde2 if you're in the West of Scotland area.

Dinnae ask me about it.

I'm listening to the England post mortem on Radio 5live.

Cheers

[Stuart Dickson]

What an opportunity for Scotland to try and get rid of this blight on our country and free us of nuclear weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27847874

I'd like to see the debate intensified on this issue to see what could actually be achieved if Independence vote is positive. Like others I have my doubts on this, as Faslane may be used as a bargaining chip.

Some people seem more concerned with wind farms than having nuclear weapons stored and transported on Scottish soil.

We have seen the impact of a wind turbine blow up. Thank goodness we have not yet seen a nuclear accident.

Personally I'd rather Scotland and my family were worse off financially with a Yes vote in exchange for a nuclear free country.

No doubt our resident wind bag will have a counter argument.

Nah - I think you'll find that Oaksoft will argue from the same point of view as yours....

I've already stated my case on this subject. Like you I think one of the first things that an Independent Scotland would trade in a bid to gain NATO Membership and use of Sterling would be Faslane. Would writing the constitution in the way Sturgeon has reportedly suggested prevent that from happening? Possibly, but you could equally argue that there is nothing in the constitution that would suggest that part of Scottish territory could be surrendered or leased to the English - as was the case in Hong Kong, and as is still the case in Gibraltar.

As for power, I really do wish we had gone down the route of building a new nuclear power station, rather than wasting so much money on wind power, not just because nuclear power is more efficient and because it has a greater reliability and safety record than wind power, but because nuclear power boosts the economy and spreads wealth in a way that wind power never will do.

When the SNP chose wind technology as their preferred choice to throw huge taxpayer resources at in Scotland Alex Salmond argued that this would create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy market for Scots, and that Scotland would become a centre of excellence as a result. Was that true? Well according to this website we've invested £1,076,600,000 on onshore wind power and that has led to just 3,397 onshore wind jobs in Scotland and we've actually seen Scotland miss it's legal obligations on CO2 emissions for the third year running. And as for being a centre of excellence, well when Siemens were looking for a UK site to build their wind turbines they opted to invest in Hull rather than Scotland.

So where is the benefit to the nation? If we built a nuclear power plant we would have created a large number of highly paid construction jobs in all trades for many years at the site. We'd also see an increase in employment in fab shops and engineering works all around the country as components are built or assembled by a highly skilled and well paid workforce. And once the construction works are complete we'd see around 1,000 well paid jobs directly employed to run the nuclear power plant and a huge number of other jobs created in the local vicinity in indirect employment servicing the needs of those well paid employees.

In wind farms we see none of those benefits. When you drive past a wind turbine do you see any employee's working on it? Do you see large communities building up around those wind farms? Do you see new jobs and shared wealth in those areas? Nope. Instead we can't see where the money is going at all, and that's because the largest part of the energy subsidy being poured into these wind farms is paid directly to the few assembled landed gentry who own the land where these wind farms are sited.

So in summary, the SNP energy strategy has failed to create jobs, failed to lower energy bills, failed to make the country "greener", and failed to create a fairer society.

[BoWSaint]

Stuart, you just rubbished a poll because of it's low number of people polled and then immediately followed up with your own poll of 4 people sitting round your dinner table to establish the "trend" of the entire country!

[Stuart Dickson]

Stuart, you just rubbished a poll because of it's low number of people polled and then immediately followed up with your own poll of 4 people sitting round your dinner table to establish the "trend" of the entire country!

No I didn't.

I rubbished a poll because of the low numbers polled - 138 is a ridiculously low sample with a very high margin of error.

Someone else suggested that around 70% of his friends were going to vote Yes - I suppose that backs up the point about a high margin of error.

I addressed his point by detailing an article that I'd read online earlier in the day that suggests that No voters tend not to be as vocal as no voters

And I said that I had a personal experience that backed up the article from a social evening that I had on Wednesday evening with three friends.

I didn't claim that the voting intention of the four people around that table - 75% in favour of the Union - was representative of the rest of the country in any way or that we were representative of the rest of Scotland, although again there is evidence in my experience that shows the danger of a poll with low sample numbers as I don't think anyone would claim that 75% of Scots will vote No.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Stuart Dickson]

I just watched a rather cringe worthy TV interview on Sunday Politics with Gordon Wilson - former leader of the SNP - who took it upon himself to call Barrack Obama "shifty" and then when pressed he claimed to know what Barrack Obama was thinking about not wanting to answer a question on Independence, doing the journalist a favour in giving him a story, and stating that Obama didn't want a "prickly" Scotland as a friend. He then went on to claim that Westminister is about to scrap the NHS and Welfare in 2015 - I really do wish that were the case but he doesn't even know who will be Prime Minster never mind what their policies are likely to be. And then talked some bollocks about how Scotland could be like the Isle of Man.

Of course this is the same numpty who two years ago claimed that gay marriage was a step towards fascism. Sadly this is the standard of politician an Independent Scotland would be saddled with if it makes the wrong choice in September.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Gordon wilson isn't a politician.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Nah - I think you'll find that Oaksoft will argue from the same point of view as yours....

I've already stated my case on this subject...

...but you still felt the need to gives us another half dozen paragraphs of your monotonous repetitive bullshit.

[Stuart Dickson]

Gordon wilson isn't a politician.

He's campaigning for Independence Tony, and he's a former SNP party leader. He's also the co founder of Solas - have a wee play around on their website. It covers subjects like how cross dressing is a sin - I'm not sure how that tallies with Scotlands National dress.

[Stuart Dickson]

...but you still felt the need to gives us another half dozen paragraphs of your monotonous repetitive bullshit.

And yet you've still got no answer to it. You can't claim to be building a more socially just system, whilst inhibiting well paid employment opportunities in favour of handing large wads of cash to Scotlands Landed Gentry.

[FTOF]

I can only guess what shite the lardy Lanarkshire troll is spouting, but here's what 1060 people think.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/yes-48-no-52-breakthrough-poll-has-yes-at-record-high.24488719

Yes 48% No 52%: record high for indy in 'breakthrough' poll

Seems the desperate attempts by the No camp to get Obama's support to boost their faltering campaign, has failed. Again.

Edited June 15, 2014 by FTOF

[Stuart Dickson]

I can only guess what shite the lardy Lanarkshire troll is spouting, but here's what 1060 people think.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/yes-48-no-52-breakthrough-poll-has-yes-at-record-high.24488719

Yes 48% No 52%: record high for indy in 'breakthrough' poll

Seems the desperate attempts by the No camp to get Obama's support to boost their faltering campaign, has failed. Again.

Still not worried. You've stripped out the don't knows. Independence Support is shown in this poll at 43%. With the usual error margin factored in it means that the Yes Campaign has maybe just about improved from the usual 1 in 3 to 1 in 2.8 or something like that. Really nothing to worry about especially when you know it's much easier for someone to say they will vote to gamble away their future and to pay more taxes, it's quite another when it comes to actually putting an x in the box.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

He's campaigning for Independence Tony, and he's a former SNP party leader. He's also the co founder of Solas - have a wee play around on their website. It covers subjects like how cross dressing is a sin - I'm not sure how that tallies with Scotlands National dress.

Many diverse people are campaigning for and also against Independence. I would've thought that with the 'marching season' being underway in Lanarkshire you would've realised this. Subtlety however, isn't a quality you appear to be over endowed with.

The point I was making is that as Gordon wilson isn't a politician, it's hardly an indication of the quality of Scottish politicians post indy.

Edited June 15, 2014 by TPAFKATS

[salmonbuddie]

And once the construction works are complete we'd see around 1,000 well paid jobs directly employed to run the nuclear power plant and a huge number of other jobs created in the local vicinity in indirect employment servicing the needs of those well paid employees.

Thought you'd learned your lesson when it comes to nuclear and getting pulled up for the shite you post but obviously not - this is bollocks, a third generation station would never need that many to run it. And how much does decommissioning cost?* Has that been factored in?

* I work in the nuclear decommissioning industry, I know.

[groucho]

Wonder who this could be ?