The Referendum Thread

[salmonbuddie]

poor language and a strangely one sided commentary from a self proclaimed "undecided" voter, ads for yes campaign included ? = it's a yes campaigner telling lies about being undecided

He WAS undecided, he claims, but has NOW come round to the AYEness. 

 

 

That's not unreasonable justification for flooding it with AYE propaganda, surely?

Ignoring his claims about the previous undecidedness, the points he makes are still valid. Stop getting caught in the minutiae!

[salmonbuddie]

Hah! Double-post,my arse.

You'd initially provided a balance with reasons to vote "Naw", so you deleted them.

The reasons for voting Naw are still there!

[RickMcD]

I don't personally know a single Yes voter "driven by hatred of the English" Rick, and I'm sure you don't , either. I know of a few sad twats online, but I don't think the number is significant. Or any more significant than the number of No voters who'll move to Wales if there's a Yes vote (you have seen that video, haven't you?).

You really need to be careful labelling people like that, you might find yourself being labelled too.

Label away, Salmonbuddie. You must have your head in the sand if you don't know any Yes voters driven by hatred. I certainly do and I know I'm not alone.

[salmonbuddie]

I don't know any personally, I know lots of Yes voters and I don't have my head in the sand on this issue, or any other, issue for that matter. Most of us have English family and friends - I certainly do - why would I hate them just for that? I have Scottish family and friends who'll vote No and I don't even hate them.....the traitorous fekkers!

[FTOF]

Label away, Salmonbuddie. You must have your head in the sand if you don't know any Yes voters driven by hatred. I certainly do and I know I'm not alone.

I don't know any either.

Maybe it's because the people I know that are of the "Yes" persuasion are rational and intelligent individuals.

[RickMcD]

I don't know any either.

Maybe it's because the people I know that are of the "Yes" persuasion are rational and intelligent individuals.

I wasn't referring really to either those who are if you like supporters of either the Yes or No campaigns. I mean the element, and it exists, who always wanted independence come hell or high water. And plenty of them have a deep rooted hatred of all things English.

[salmonbuddie]

Agreed, Rick, but I disagree with your assertion that they're a significant number. More minutiae, it's static around the real issues, just like Rangers supporters moving to Wales is.

Edited January 25, 2014 by salmonbuddie

[FTOF]

I wasn't referring really to either those who are if you like supporters of either the Yes or No campaigns. I mean the element, and it exists, who always wanted independence come hell or high water. And plenty of them have a deep rooted hatred of all things English.

O.K. Point taken.

However, there a significant number of "No" voters, let's call them "loyalist" scots, for the want of a better label, who seem to hate the idea of independence with equal venom.

It works both ways.

[bluto]

Agreed, Rick, but I disagree with your assertion that they're a significant number. More minutiae, it's static around the real issues, just like Rangers supporters moving to Wales is.

Real issues?

Like how will Scotland and Scots be better equipped to deal with Capitalism and economic forces, if it/they decide to go it alone - given that Scotland (Popn 5m) is firmly attached to its main market of 60+ million people?

I'm all for idealism, but was utterly unconvinced by the signs put up by my council as you entered my Borough:

"Waltham Forest - a nuclear-free zone" (since removed).

It was a nice ideal but meaningless as the wider community (ie THE REST OF THE WORLD) was not yet convinced. In practical terms, it made no difference. Just another frivolous local govt cost.

I believe in the rights of an individual to stand up against their employer - but I also believe that you are better doing it together. In Unions. Not just for the unskilled, weak, disabled, challenged... for all. As an ideal having individual rights are ok, cos I can walk out and get another job cos I've been lucky, but not everyone has that luck. We do better together against the forces of Capitalism - we should share that burden.

Similarly, Scotland going it alone is a nice idea for some Scots and for the 'idea of Scottishness' but the fact is that there are economic forces (linked to the Bigger UK market) that dictate it remains part of that market. Like it or not - Scotland will still be economically tied to the rest of the UK, but (as a tax-paying Londoner ) getting less economic and political support than we give the NE or NW.

Yes, Scotland CAN deal direct with Europe but at an added cost. I worked at Rootes, Linwood and the added costs (to get materials to the plant then get product to the markets - initially subsidised by the govt) was one reason that made cars built in Scotland less attractive.

The bottom line is that even after an AYE vote you will still have politicians, whether ScotNat or not - and it is those malleable, fallible individuals that will make or break your future.

It beats me how any sensible person can place faith in unknown entities to change their world for the better, just by stepping out of the real world... which is how I see Nationalists abandoning a Union that has served us well.

The current UK set up, with a wonderful but grotesque London, IS broken - and it does need fixed. It won't help to turn your back on it and pretend all will be well cos the Scottish end of the lifeboat doesn't seem to be leaking at the moment.

We're all in it together.

(Bugger. I seem to have been lured intae posting in this threid again. Sorry )

Edited January 25, 2014 by bluto

[salmonbuddie]

Scotland leaving could be the wake up call rUK needs to address those issues, bluto.

I'll agree to disagree with you on what's best for Scotland but, as someone said somewhere else (could've been me), it's ironic that many of the same people telling us of the benefits of Union are the same people telling us that the EU's no good. Not that I'm saying that's you, of course.

[bluto]

Scotland leaving could be the wake up call rUK needs to address those issues, bluto.

I'll agree to disagree with you on what's best for Scotland but, as someone said somewhere else (could've been me), it's ironic that many of the same people telling us of the benefits of Union are the same people telling us that the EU's no good. Not that I'm saying that's you, of course.

Aye, it COULD be... which would be a bit late after the GOOD thing had been broken (holed below the waterline, as would be consistent with the lifeboat analogy I was beginning to float away on!).

Also - it's NOT 'many of the same people' it's mainly the loonies that are telling us that the EU is no good. It HAS its problems, too - undeniable...

BUT!

SHHHHHHH

THE FITBA'S OAN!

[oaksoft]

I wasn't referring really to either those who are if you like supporters of either the Yes or No campaigns. I mean the element, and it exists, who always wanted independence come hell or high water. And plenty of them have a deep rooted hatred of all things English.

Sorry but I don't know any either.

Mind you I don't live in Northern Ireland so maybe my experience is different from yours.

Attempting to label Yes voters as racist is a bit of a low blow.

[oaksoft]

I believe in the rights of an individual to stand up against their employer - but I also believe that you are better doing it together. In Unions. Not just for the unskilled, weak, disabled, challenged... for all. As an ideal having individual rights are ok, cos I can walk out and get another job cos I've been lucky, but not everyone has that luck. We do better together against the forces of Capitalism - we should share that burden.

We're all in it together.

All in it together? Seriously?

So whilst the disabled are having their benefits targetted, low paid workers are being forced to accept zero hour contracts and those who had savings forced to watch as yet another month of no interest goes by, tell me something bluto; how are all those on over £150k a year getting on?

How is their financial situation?

What about the captains of industry?

The bankers and speculators who caused this mess?

Perhaps the politicians who allowed the bankers to crash the ship? Are they getting their pay cut? Or are they on the verge of a double digit pay rise?

You can take your "all in it together" and shove it.

Maybe Scotland will struggle but we'll have the ability to make decisions for ourselves about the level of inequality we'll tolerate. You're right. We have certainty about the UK - certainty that staggering inequality will continue forever.

[smcc]

Real issues?

Like how will Scotland and Scots be better equipped to deal with Capitalism and economic forces, if it/they decide to go it alone - given that Scotland (Popn 5m) is firmly attached to its main market of 60+ million people?

I'm all for idealism, but was utterly unconvinced by the signs put up by my council as you entered my Borough:

"Waltham Forest - a nuclear-free zone" (since removed).

It was a nice ideal but meaningless as the wider community (ie THE REST OF THE WORLD) was not yet convinced. In practical terms, it made no difference. Just another frivolous local govt cost.

I believe in the rights of an individual to stand up against their employer - but I also believe that you are better doing it together. In Unions. Not just for the unskilled, weak, disabled, challenged... for all. As an ideal having individual rights are ok, cos I can walk out and get another job cos I've been lucky, but not everyone has that luck. We do better together against the forces of Capitalism - we should share that burden.

Similarly, Scotland going it alone is a nice idea for some Scots and for the 'idea of Scottishness' but the fact is that there are economic forces (linked to the Bigger UK market) that dictate it remains part of that market. Like it or not - Scotland will still be economically tied to the rest of the UK, but (as a tax-paying Londoner ) getting less economic and political support than we give the NE or NW.

Yes, Scotland CAN deal direct with Europe but at an added cost. I worked at Rootes, Linwood and the added costs (to get materials to the plant then get product to the markets - initially subsidised by the govt) was one reason that made cars built in Scotland less attractive.

The bottom line is that even after an AYE vote you will still have politicians, whether ScotNat or not - and it is those malleable, fallible individuals that will make or break your future.

It beats me how any sensible person can place faith in unknown entities to change their world for the better, just by stepping out of the real world... which is how I see Nationalists abandoning a Union that has served us well.

The current UK set up, with a wonderful but grotesque London, IS broken - and it does need fixed. It won't help to turn your back on it and pretend all will be well cos the Scottish end of the lifeboat doesn't seem to be leaking at the moment.

We're all in it together.

(Bugger. I seem to have been lured intae posting in this threid again. Sorry )

Bluto, you really need to remove your blinkers. If you think that Scotland within the UK can have any influnce on changing the London-centred attitude of successive UK governments you are severely deluded.

Have a look at this letter from yesterdays Herald and give it some thought.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/letters/we-should-compare-competence-of-westminster-and-holyrood.23265463

"The propaganda from the UK Government showing how Scotland would be worse off with independence is just that - propaganda. The forecasts from various supposedly-independent think-tanks all seem to be based on the assumption that an independent Scotland would follow exactly the same economic procedures that Westminster use. But already, it is clear, Scotland since devolution has diverged from some of those procedures. The divergence may not yet be substantial but its direction is. Those Westminster procedures led the UK into its present mess and are failing to get it out. Why should Scotland follow them?

When it comes to competence the Scottish Government has shown that it can perform quite well even though its budget is fixed by West­minster, its tax-raising power is very limited and it has little borrowing power. It has perpetrated few major blunders. (Let no-one mention the Parliament building since that shambles was of Westminster's doing, or the Edinburgh tram fiasco, which was pushed through by Labour and the other parties against the wishes of the SNP.)"

The big problem lies with the English establishment over which Scotland has no influence.

[RickMcD]

Sorry but I don't know any either.

Mind you I don't live in Northern Ireland so maybe my experience is different from yours.

Attempting to label Yes voters as racist is a bit of a low blow.

Only an arsehole like you could come out with a statement like that. I'm not even sure you live in a parallel universe let alone the real world. I'm referring, in case you're in any doubt, to the racist accusation. There is no barrell big enough, slimy enough or smelly enough that you can't reach the bottom. I would have had you on ignore a while ago but I get a perverse enjoyment from trying to suss your highly individual thought process. A quasi scientist you would have us believe.

You're on ignore now, so Merry Christmas when it comes.

[oaksoft]

Only an arsehole like you could come out with a statement like that. I'm not even sure you live in a parallel universe let alone the real world. I'm referring, in case you're in any doubt, to the racist accusation. There is no barrell big enough, slimy enough or smelly enough that you can't reach the bottom. I would have had you on ignore a while ago but I get a perverse enjoyment from trying to suss your highly individual thought process. A quasi scientist you would have us believe.

You're on ignore now, so Merry Christmas when it comes.

That's your choice Rick.

You'll notice however that I didn't accuse anyone of being a racist.

I was taking issue with YOU calling yes voters racist.

But it's a free world. If you want to take a childish hissy fit because you can't tolerate others opinions then ignore away.

[oaksoft]

Meanwhile back on Planet Civil, the usually anti-independence Scotsman on Sunday headline this morning shows that this is beginning to look like it will go to the wire following the latest poll:-

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-within-snp-s-grasp-poll-1-3281655

Interesting that it's older voters who are now the main blockage for the Yes campaign - particularly those over 65.

Younger voters up to the age of 45 do appear to be shifting their opinion in favour of Yes.

Also interesting that they found No voters were "softer" (wanting a No result but not passionately wanting it) than Yes voters.

The game will be won or lost when the No campaign publish their list.

If they don't concede full tax and welfare powers to Scotland then IMO that'll be the game up for them.

Edited January 26, 2014 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

Meanwhile back on Planet Civil, the usually anti-independence Scotsman on Sunday headline this morning shows that this is beginning to look like it will go to the wire following the latest poll:-

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-within-snp-s-grasp-poll-1-3281655

Interesting that it's older voters who are now the main blockage for the Yes campaign - particularly those over 65.

Younger voters up to the age of 45 do appear to be shifting their opinion in favour of Yes.

Also interesting that they found No voters were "softer" (wanting a No result but not passionately wanting it) than Yes voters.

The game will be won or lost when the No campaign publish their list.

If they don't concede full tax and welfare powers to Scotland then IMO that'll be the game up for them.

It won't go to the wire. It's dead in the water Oaksoft.

Lets face it when it comes to the actual referendum Scots are going to have to be mental to take such a large risk with their incomes and their futures going down an irreversible path at a time when the UK economy will be looking solid, and when England will be pumping up large amounts of gas from fracking sites in Lancashire.

I predict now that the No campaign will shift it's focus on the fact that Independence would lead Scots down a one way street to the cliff face and ultimate catastrophe, while voting to stay within the Union will mean giving it another 10 - 20 years or so before having another Independence referendum if there Scots still have the stomach for another one. There is absolutely no good reason for rushing into Independence. We've had more than 300 years of world power and influence thanks to the fact we were partners in the most successful political unions of all time. Giving that up on a promise that Scot's will benefit from depleting oil stocks while the English get to keep the massive revenues about to be generated from gas extraction is just stupid.

[bluto]

All in it together? Seriously?

So whilst the disabled are having their benefits targetted, low paid workers are being forced to accept zero hour contracts and those who had savings forced to watch as yet another month of no interest goes by, tell me something bluto; how are all those on over £150k a year getting on?

How is their financial situation?

What about the captains of industry?

The bankers and speculators who caused this mess?

Perhaps the politicians who allowed the bankers to crash the ship? Are they getting their pay cut? Or are they on the verge of a double digit pay rise?

You can take your "all in it together" and shove it.

Maybe Scotland will struggle but we'll have the ability to make decisions for ourselves about the level of inequality we'll tolerate. You're right. We have certainty about the UK - certainty that staggering inequality will continue forever.

It's interesting how you accuse Rick of racism whilst your jibe at my post is based wholly on the racism that: Scottish politicians will never be as bad as the English/UK ones were.

The idea of Nation states is well down the road to extinction. The so called MULTIRACIAL 'national' football teams are evidence of that, while (as my post suggested) ECONOMIC demands place much more importance on Champions League , featuring teams assembled on the basis of money.

I'd prefer it otherwise, but it's economic reality.

Good to see Scotland believe it can buck that trend.

[oaksoft]

It's interesting how you accuse Rick of racism whilst your jibe at my post is based wholly on the racism that: Scottish politicians will never be as bad as the English/UK ones were.

The idea of Nation states is well down the road to extinction. The so called MULTIRACIAL 'national' football teams are evidence of that, while (as my post suggested) ECONOMIC demands place much more importance on Champions League , featuring teams assembled on the basis of money.

I'd prefer it otherwise, but it's economic reality.

Good to see Scotland believe it can buck that trend.

Aren't you a bit old for this sort of puerile nonsense?

OK I'm going to say this just as slowly as possible so that you don't miss anything.

Scottish based politicians IMO will better represent Scottish voters because they live and work here.

Quite where the racism is I don't know but then you're the one claiming to be Einstein.

Nice to see you've remembered who to log in as this time BTW.

Really though I genuinely hope that the combined tactic of people like you and Dickson continues because a campaign of fear, complacency and accusations of racism against those who believe in independence. because you'll continue to galvanise support for the Yes campaign.

Edited January 27, 2014 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

It won't go to the wire. It's dead in the water Oaksoft.

Lets face it when it comes to the actual referendum Scots are going to have to be mental to take such a large risk with their incomes and their futures going down an irreversible path at a time when the UK economy will be looking solid, and when England will be pumping up large amounts of gas from fracking sites in Lancashire.

I predict now that the No campaign will shift it's focus on the fact that Independence would lead Scots down a one way street to the cliff face and ultimate catastrophe, while voting to stay within the Union will mean giving it another 10 - 20 years or so before having another Independence referendum if there Scots still have the stomach for another one. There is absolutely no good reason for rushing into Independence. We've had more than 300 years of world power and influence thanks to the fact we were partners in the most successful political unions of all time. Giving that up on a promise that Scot's will benefit from depleting oil stocks while the English get to keep the massive revenues about to be generated from gas extraction is just stupid.

Dead in the water? I'm pretty sure nobody in the No camp will be sharing that view this morning.

A 3 point swing and the vote is tied.

Your prediction can only come true if the BT campaign step up the negativity.

That tactic has caused the polls to go from 60-30 to 44-37 within the last few months.

I'm surprised at your confidence but then complacency is a very British trait.

Just a touch over 40% of Scots want to remain in the Union despite having 300 years of evidence of how "good" it is for us.

Only a small number fewer than that are prepared to vote for a leap into the unknown.

70% of Scots want virtually full financial powers over tax and welfare and most of them are voting No.

It will be interesting to see how the No manifesto handles that.

I think you'll find the end game is in sight.

If the No campaign offer full powers then the Yes campaign is dead.

If they offer us the powers such as the ability to determine pollution levels in the North Sea then the BT campaign will collapse like a flan.

Personally I hope they take your advice and offer f**k all whilst making strong hints that they'll shut Holyrood but I'm trying not to hope too hard for that scenario in case I'm disappointed.

Edited January 27, 2014 by oaksoft

[bluto]

Aren't you a bit old for this sort of puerile nonsense?

OK I'm going to say this just as slowly as possible so that you don't miss anything.

Scottish based politicians IMO will better represent Scottish voters because they live and work here.

Quite where the racism is I don't know but then you're the one claiming to be Einstein.

Nice to see you've remembered who to log in as this time BTW.

Really though I genuinely hope that the combined tactic of people like you and Dickson continues because a campaign of fear, complacency and accusations of racism against those who believe in independence. because you'll continue to galvanise support for the Yes campaign.

As you claim to be a scientist yet refuse to contemplate reality, fail to address facts and just want to dump everything to...

.... land in the new irrevocable state and take it from there...

....I have to assume your field of science is astrology?

You are indulging in whim and fancy. You offer no data to persuade that you have a clue what is going on. I talk of economics: you offer up Scottish politicians. I had offered the failure of politicians being a fallibility of that breed, and you claim Scottish ones will be "better". Based on what information? What irrefutable knowledge? Is it " just something in yer watter" that is telling you this?

Scots politicians such as Broon, Darling, Blair, Smith, Cook, Dewar are lambasted but ones based in Scotland will be better. How does that work? The same hopelessly primitive analogy could be used for... British politicians IMHO will better represent British voters cos they live and work there.

The same could be said for Shetland and Orkney politicians- who, at least, would have the economic benefit of oil wealth to squander on behalf of a better heads of population ratio.

As a scientist I'd expect you deal in facts. You fail.

Starting your response to me with an ageist comment not only demonstrates the paucity of your mind but is also as illegal nowadays as is accusing others of racism. Not that I would wish this Forum to be over-moderated. I mention it in a spirit of Buddily advice: ad hominem comments are so unimpressive.

Finally, your fancy that I may be another poster's alias shows how keenly analytic a mind you have. I happened to go to school with e=mc2' s big brother. They were neighbours of mine.

With leaps of logic such as you made, perhaps your brain is closer to that of Einstein than any of us can reckon.

Or maybe Brian Epstein's brain...?

Edited January 27, 2014 by bluto

[Stuart Dickson]

Dead in the water? I'm pretty sure nobody in the No camp will be sharing that view this morning.

A 3 point swing and the vote is tied.

Your prediction can only come true if the BT campaign step up the negativity.

That tactic has caused the polls to go from 60-30 to 44-37 within the last few months.

I'm surprised at your confidence but then complacency is a very British trait.

Just a touch over 40% of Scots want to remain in the Union despite having 300 years of evidence of how "good" it is for us.

Only a small number fewer than that are prepared to vote for a leap into the unknown.

70% of Scots want virtually full financial powers over tax and welfare and most of them are voting No.

It will be interesting to see how the No manifesto handles that.

I think you'll find the end game is in sight.

If the No campaign offer full powers then the Yes campaign is dead.

If they offer us the powers such as the ability to determine pollution levels in the North Sea then the BT campaign will collapse like a flan.

Personally I hope they take your advice and offer f**k all whilst making strong hints that they'll shut Holyrood but I'm trying not to hope too hard for that scenario in case I'm disappointed.

Aren't you the man who has rubbished every single one of those polls up to this point? You've criticised everything from the sample group size to the questions being posed yet this morning you've woken with a hard on because one poll seems to show that the Yes vote is gaining ground.

Anyway just to change the subject slightly - what about the fiscal credibility argument. In Scotland over the past few weeks we've seen Nicola Sturgeon claim on national TV that this referendum debate is about whether Scots want to see more cuts in benefits and year on year austerity budgets if they vote no - whilst pledging continued free prescriptions, free further education to everyone from the EU except the English - despite what the law says, free childcare, and increased benefit payments claiming all this can be done without any need to increase levels of taxation in Scotland. On Question Time John Swinney accepts that Scotland will have to take it's share of the UK National Debt and offers no proof on how he could raise money to cover Sturgeons increased spending plans whilst Jim Sillars claims that the UK national debt is a fictitious figure anyway because in the UK we have our own currency, we've used economic levers to do Quantitive Easing which he says means that the UK government has bought UK debt through the purchase of government bonds that would allow the UK government to write off vast quantities of UK debt if it so wished. It was really helpful of him cause an Independent Scotland would have none of those levers at all, Instead what it proves was that if Scotland was to continue to use Sterling after Independence it creates a situation where the UK Government would own all of Scotlands debt meaning that absolutely none of Scotlands debt can be written off - unlike the debt for the rest of the UK.

UK wide George Osborne has greeted the latest good news on the economy with caution. He warns that we have to control borrowing to avoid an interest rate rise. He greets the news of some of the best growth figures in the world currently with caution and warns that the economy still needs trimming to get our household budget in order. At the Labour Party Ed Balls has accepted that Labour will also have to continue a programme of cuts but pledges to make fewer cuts whilst increasing the tax rate back to 50%

Now bearing in mind that Alex Salmond was the man who offered to do anything at all to help Freddy Goodwin pay way over the odds for ABN Amro - a move which bankrupted the bank and which left it begging for a UK government bail out what fiscal credibility does the Independence argument have? And is all this rhetoric going to help Scotlands credit rating or hinder it if it ever were to become an Independent nation?

Edited January 27, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

Aren't you the man who has rubbished every single one of those polls up to this point? You've criticised everything from the sample group size to the questions being posed yet this morning you've woken with a hard on because one poll seems to show that the Yes vote is gaining ground.

Anyway just to change the subject slightly - what about the fiscal credibility argument. In Scotland over the past few weeks we've seen Nicola Sturgeon claim on national TV that this referendum debate is about whether Scots want to see more cuts in benefits and year on year austerity budgets if they vote no - whilst pledging continued free prescriptions, free further education to everyone from the EU except the English - despite what the law says, free childcare, and increased benefit payments claiming all this can be done without any need to increase levels of taxation in Scotland. On Question Time John Swinney accepts that Scotland will have to take it's share of the UK National Debt and offers no proof on how he could raise money to cover Sturgeons increased spending plans whilst Jim Sillars claims that the UK national debt is a fictitious figure anyway because in the UK we have our own currency, we've used economic levers to do Quantitive Easing which he says means that the UK government has bought UK debt through the purchase of government bonds that would allow the UK government to write off vast quantities of UK debt if it so wished. It was really helpful of him cause an Independent Scotland would have none of those levers at all, Instead what it proves was that if Scotland was to continue to use Sterling after Independence it creates a situation where the UK Government would own all of Scotlands debt meaning that absolutely none of Scotlands debt can be written off - unlike the debt for the rest of the UK.

UK wide George Osborne has greeted the latest good news on the economy with caution. He warns that we have to control borrowing to avoid an interest rate rise. He greets the news of some of the best growth figures in the world currently with caution and warns that the economy still needs trimming to get our household budget in order. At the Labour Party Ed Balls has accepted that Labour will also have to continue a programme of cuts but pledges to make fewer cuts whilst increasing the tax rate back to 50%

Now bearing in mind that Alex Salmond was the man who offered to do anything at all to help Freddy Goodwin pay way over the odds for ABN Amro - a move which bankrupted the bank and which left it begging for a UK government bail out what fiscal credibility does the Independence argument have? And is all this rhetoric going to help Scotlands credit rating or hinder it if it ever were to become an Independent nation?

Not a single sentence of this is relevant.

Why?

Because the main swing of the polls is in the huge social classes C, D and E who simply switch off at the phrase "fiscal policy".

The No campaign is losing the masses.

As for me personally? I've already said I accept the risk of things going wrong financially.

Others will vote with their wallets in mind.

Others still will vote with their hearts.

A dwindling number of voters are listening to people like you.

[Bud Bundy]

As you claim to be a scientist yet refuse to contemplate reality, fail to address facts and just want to dump everything to...

.... land in the new irrevocable state and take it from there...

....I have to assume your field of science is astrology?

You are indulging in whim and fancy. You offer no data to persuade that you have a clue what is going on. I talk of economics: you offer up Scottish politicians. I had offered the failure of politicians being a fallibility of that breed, and you claim Scottish ones will be "better". Based on what information? What irrefutable knowledge? Is it " just something in yer watter" that is telling you this?

Scots politicians such as Broon, Darling, Blair, Smith, Cook, Dewar are lambasted but ones based in Scotland will be better. How does that work? The same hopelessly primitive analogy could be used for... British politicians IMHO will better represent British voters cos they live and work there.

The same could be said for Shetland and Orkney politicians- who, at least, would have the economic benefit of oil wealth to squander on behalf of a better heads of population ratio.

As a scientist I'd expect you deal in facts. You fail.

Starting your response to me with an ageist comment not only demonstrates the paucity of your mind but is also as illegal nowadays as is accusing others of racism. Not that I would wish this Forum to be over-moderated. I mention it in a spirit of Buddily advice: ad hominem comments are so unimpressive.

Finally, your fancy that I may be another poster's alias shows how keenly analytic a mind you have. I happened to go to school with e=mc2' s big brother. They were neighbours of mine.

With leaps of logic such as you made, perhaps your brain is closer to that of Einstein than any of us can reckon.

Or maybe Brian Epstein's brain...?