The Referendum Thread

[oaksoft]

Explain please.

Nope sorry because for me banter has to be clever or funny to make it interesting.

[salmonbuddie]

I wasn't asking your opinion on my shit.

There's plenty of adult conversation going on in this thread.

salmonbuddie is a prime example.

Try contributing and you'll get a better audience.

Cheers oaky, we should all, on both sides, take a step back from the keyboard now and then and think about what we're saying to each other - we're all buddies together and, for the one and only time I'll mention it in this thread, better together.

Incidentally, StuD says he doesn't support St Mirren so he's excluded from the above. Keep firing at him if you want, but it's better taking my route and ignoring anything and everything he writes. Deprive him of comment and see how long he keeps it up for. Not got him ignore, mind, people quote him so it doesn't work and I do like a good laugh every now and then. His fevered imaginings are works of lunatic genius at times.

[salmonbuddie]

I didn't (well not that I remember).

I don't pay attention to a newspaper that's read by mostly tory voters.

Aye, memory's a bugger when you get on a bit....

[linwood buddie]

Nope sorry because for me banter has to be clever or funny to make it interesting.

Really ,that is your answer ,where in my reply too you did I mention banter , really doesn't matter ,like I said your opinions mean nothing too me.

[oaksoft]

Cheers oaky, we should all, on both sides, take a step back from the keyboard now and then and think about what we're saying to each other - we're all buddies together and, for the one and only time I'll mention it in this thread, better together.

It's a great sentiment but I'm extremely worried about the tone of the debate - particularly from the No side although both sides are quite happy to slug it out.

I'm worried because this thread is a microcosm of what is happening in the real world over this issue.

Pick any forum and you'll see this tripe everywhere.

In First Minister's Questions you had the leader of the labour party accusing Salmond of "deception" when he was quoting words directly from the Standard Life chief. She had to be warned twice about using that unacceptable word in the chamber.

The concern is that regardless of the vote, people will have to live and work together afterwards to deal with the consequences.

Politicians may be great at that but Joe Public isn't.

It's one thing working with someone who calls you a numpty for voting Yes or No.

It's quite another being equated to brownshirts and holocaust deniers. This isn't banter IMO.

Anyway that's a pretty long way of saying that I agree with you.

[oaksoft]

Anyway, on an encouraging note, the following is interesting. The only people who can provide any guarantees after independence are the No side.

The Yes campaign can really only offer hope and and sell a vision because they can't completely guarantee anything.

The No campaign have 300 years of proof of how things will work in the event of a No vote and they should be easily able to kill the Yes campaign through a positive reinforcement of what has worked for us together along with a pledge to make the changes people are asking for to prevent this debate ever happening again.

The No campaign can offer certainty on currency, the EU (for now anyway), jobs and pensions etc.

They also have virtually the entire media backing them along with every major UK political party.

The No campaigners are making full use of their address books to bring in people to cast doubt on every aspect of an independent Scotland from EU membership to business.

That's a massive advantage which the Yes campaign can't rely on.

Now I said there was an encouraging note and it is this.

According to countless opinion polls, only around HALF of all voters are prepared to vote for this tried and trusted and "safe" option.

The No campaign need to put this to bed urgently and yet even if they win, anything less than 70% voting No will see this debate rear up again in 10 years.

If the current polls are right, nearly 40% are prepared to buy into uncertainty with six months to go. Most people polled also believe the SNP will get it's way on EU and a shared currency which means that:-

a) the fear mongering isn't working so the No tactics aren't working at all. Why are they not at 70-80% ? They've threatened us with everything and the polls have moved against them!

b ) the Yes campaign hasn't quite fathomed out yet what button needs to be pressed to get a majority and kill this debate dead so we're seeing this slow creep towards 50%.

Take a step back and think about this. Nearly 40% of us are prepared to risk jobs, pensions, currency, EU membership and our own defence in order to pursue a dream.

Whether or not this is reckless is irrelevant. People WILL get caught up in this as the vote nears. In these circumstances the positive message usually ends up gaining in popularity so we can safely assume the Yes vote will increase.

If the Yes campaign can find out why people agree with their assertions but still won't vote Yes then they might well be able to pull this off and see it taught in schools in 100 years time.

Edited March 1, 2014 by oaksoft

[bluto]

I wasn't asking your opinion on my shit.

There's plenty of adult conversation going on in this thread.

salmonbuddie is a prime example.

Try contributing and you'll get a better audience.

Try contributing anything that isn't yes and your contribution will be deemed worthless.

I offered support for what the FT says on a certain issue and am lambasted cos that was a Tory rag that doesn't do social justice.

I suggested it was a paper of accuracy wrt money matters (eg standard life's proposals) and I have an agenda!

They don't like it up 'em.

It's NOT what passes for adult conversation.

[oaksoft]

Try contributing anything that isn't yes and your contribution will be deemed worthless.

I offered support for what the FT says on a certain issue and am lambasted cos that was a Tory rag that doesn't do social justice.

I suggested it was a paper of accuracy wrt money matters (eg standard life's proposals) and I have an agenda!

They don't like it up 'em.

It's NOT what passes for adult conversation.

You sure as hell didn't get that response from me and I'm not about to start defending anyone else's actions.

As for the FT article there were two aspects to it.

Firstly there's the journalists words and secondly there's the direct quotes from Standard and Poor.

Now imagine we didn't know exactly what information the article contained but we knew it was about credit ratings.

Before you pick up the paper which text do you reckon will be most valuable?

Always look for the full direct quotes and mistrust any "interpretation" of the words spoken.

We're taught this in school bluto. My daughter is getting taught it now.

They are trying to educate kids about how to spot bias in stories and that direct quotes can cut straight through 100 words of analysis.

The reason you're getting picked up is because given greater weight to the journalists intepretation than the direct quotes from Standard and Poor.

Surely we're agreed on this?

Edited March 1, 2014 by oaksoft

[linwood buddie]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-VFYWceg7-0cyc6Z-E9FVm-v8wyPaWsejevcA-okK4W8x4ZXxdQ

NO.

[RickMcD]

I try to stay out of this but I'll chip in once more. Are we talking about the same Standard & Poor's who looked the other way when the American banking crisis and sub-prime mortgage scandal was building up to a storm? The same Standard & Poor's who may yet face the American Judiciary? The Standard & Poor's who started cutting ratings in panic when they were under scrutiny? Don't they make mistakes?

I wasn't surprised by Standard Life's statement. Standard life do a huge amount of pension business so they of necessity have to buy a lot of gilts. Once pensions are in payment they are secured largely by high coupon medium to long term gilts. That is obtainable from the UK government and may or may not be from an independent Scotland. So why take the risk? Oh! I remember now. The Yes campaign say everything in the garden is rosy so there's no risk.

The FT has always stayed pretty well out of politics. How typical of the Yes voters to turn on it because of possibly the only article they have ever read in it. Talk about reds under the bed. Neurotic or what? And only another six months of this to go.

[oaksoft]

I try to stay out of this but I'll chip in once more. Are we talking about the same Standard & Poor's who looked the other way when the American banking crisis and sub-prime mortgage scandal was building up to a storm? The same Standard & Poor's who may yet face the American Judiciary? The Standard & Poor's who started cutting ratings in panic when they were under scrutiny? Don't they make mistakes?

I wasn't surprised by Standard Life's statement. Standard life do a huge amount of pension business so they of necessity have to buy a lot of gilts. Once pensions are in payment they are secured largely by high coupon medium to long term gilts. That is obtainable from the UK government and may or may not be from an independent Scotland. So why take the risk? Oh! I remember now. The Yes campaign say everything in the garden is rosy so there's no risk.

The FT has always stayed pretty well out of politics. How typical of the Yes voters to turn on it because of possibly the only article they have ever read in it. Talk about reds under the bed. Neurotic or what? And only another six months of this to go.

Your first paragraph is a good one as is the first sentence of the 2nd para and raises interesting points and then you just can't help yourself from there on in.

Are you just completely incapable of accepting that other people MIGHT have a different opinion to you which might also be valid?

[salmonbuddie]

I try to stay out of this but I'll chip in once more. Are we talking about the same Standard & Poor's who looked the other way when the American banking crisis and sub-prime mortgage scandal was building up to a storm? The same Standard & Poor's who may yet face the American Judiciary? The Standard & Poor's who started cutting ratings in panic when they were under scrutiny? Don't they make mistakes?

I wasn't surprised by Standard Life's statement. Standard life do a huge amount of pension business so they of necessity have to buy a lot of gilts. Once pensions are in payment they are secured largely by high coupon medium to long term gilts. That is obtainable from the UK government and may or may not be from an independent Scotland. So why take the risk? Oh! I remember now. The Yes campaign say everything in the garden is rosy so there's no risk.

The FT has always stayed pretty well out of politics. How typical of the Yes voters to turn on it because of possibly the only article they have ever read in it. Talk about reds under the bed. Neurotic or what? And only another six months of this to go.

I think the issue with the Standard Life story is the way it's been reported, Rick. Quite rightly, SL have contingency plans in place which they will implement if needed. It was reported everywhere as if SL are going to leave Edinburgh in the event of independence, a complete fabrication.

And didn't you read me defending the FT a bit back? At the time of the story "supporting" independence, the nay-sayers were extremely vocal in their condemnation of it - typical of their neuroses, too?

[Stuart Dickson]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-VFYWceg7-0cyc6Z-E9FVm-v8wyPaWsejevcA-okK4W8x4ZXxdQ

NO.

Absolutely No.

[FTOF]

The FT has always stayed pretty well out of politics. How typical of the Yes voters to turn on it because of possibly the only article they have ever read in it. Talk about reds under the bed. Neurotic or what? And only another six months of this to go.

Really?

They were pretty vocal in supporting Thatcher in the 80's and then supported Gordon Brown in his failed attempt to stay PM last time round.

[Stuart Dickson]

Really?

They were pretty vocal in supporting Thatcher in the 80's and then supported Gordon Brown in his failed attempt to stay PM last time round.

That's true actually - but it comes back to what Bluto was saying. They supported Thatchers monetary policies and when they backed Labour in 2001 and 2005 they clearly thought there was more money to be made by keeping Labour in power. The main driver of the Financial Times is money - as the title says. If an Independent Scotland was likely to make everyone better off, as the Natsi's like to claim, then they'd be supporting it.

[FTOF]

That's true actually - but it comes back to what Bluto was saying. They supported Thatchers monetary policies and when they backed Labour in 2001 and 2005 they clearly thought there was more money to be made by keeping Labour in power. The main driver of the Financial Times is money - as the title says. If an Independent Scotland was likely to make everyone better off, as the Natsi's like to claim, then they'd be supporting it.

Of course it is, I don't post untruths.

You should try it some time.

[RickMcD]

Really?

They were pretty vocal in supporting Thatcher in the 80's and then supported Gordon Brown in his failed attempt to stay PM last time round.

Does that not suggest that they show a preference for the party that in terms of their policy on economics has it right rather than simply leaning to the left or the right? The FT have always had journalists who know their subject.

My view has always been that I want whatever government is in power to get it right for the good of the people and the country as a whole. I've never been all that worried about their leaning one way or the other until they f**ck up which is quite often. The United Kingdom with its faults works albeit it is imperfect. I've seen no conclusive evidence that an indepedent Scotland could do better. Why take the risk? Because you don't like England? Let's hear the denials.

[oaksoft]

Why take the risk? Because you don't like England? Let's hear the denials.

It's Dickson Mark II.

[groucho]

I like this guy

[davidg]

I've spent my whole life filling out forms stating my nationality was Scottish and not British bit when it comes to the vote in September I'm pretty sure I'll be voting Naw.

[Drew]

I've spent my whole life filling out forms stating my nationality was Scottish and not British bit when it comes to the vote in September I'm pretty sure I'll be voting Naw.

Why?

[davidg]

Why?

Quickly off the top of my head

Alex Salmond

SNP

Uncertanty with the pound

Mortgate rates

It's not broke, what's to fix?

Divide can't be good

We already make a lot of major decisions at the Scottish Parliment on education, health and law.

Import tax on Peroni?

Edited March 2, 2014 by davidg

[salmonbuddie]

Jeez, thought we were past this. You're not voting for Salmond, or the SNP, or any unionist party. You're voting for Scotland's future.

Currency union, in the short term, in the event of independence, is in everyone's best interests. We would be fine with our own currency despite what the No campaign would have you believe.

It is completely broken. We have the chance to fix it. Bedroom Tax, anyone? And that's just one example.

Divide us from the EU you mean?

Yes, but let's make the decisions we can control without relying on handouts.

Peroni will always be import tax free, AS has promised that to me personally.

Edited March 2, 2014 by salmonbuddie

[salmonbuddie]

I may have made some of that last post up. I'm only following StuD's example, though.....

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Quickly off the top of my head

Alex Salmond

SNP

Uncertanty with the pound

Mortgate rates

It's not broke, what's to fix?

Divide can't be good

We already make a lot of major decisions at the Scottish Parliment on education, health and law.

Import tax on Peroni?

You're not voting for Salmond or SNP

What is the uncertainty with the pound that concerns you?

What concerns do you have regarding mortgage rates in an independent. Scotland as opposed to remaining in UK?

It's not broke - seriously?

You don't think Scotland or UK society is already divided?

Peroni- ah, I see now you were on the wind up...

Edit- yes we make some decisions but are hamstrung by the lack of autonomy over finance and taxation to name but two.

Edited March 2, 2014 by TPAFKATS