[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

bencooper - Member

They got a lot of abuse, and from proper newspapers not idiots on Twitter.

You're right; it was widely reported with an unpleasant and sneering tone, but that's not really the same as being called a [i]#bitch[/i] by a charity. 😆 (n.b. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they've got a work experience kiddy working their twitter account or they've been fraped, but still, it's up 4 hours later FFS!)

[IMG] [/IMG]

Edit:

As soon as I posted, this appeared on their site:

DISCLAIMER
The Dignity Project
Has had it's Twitter account hacked
We are not responsible for any tweets that have been sent.
As a charity we do not take any political stance and our opinion is people are free to donate to whoever they choose.

So there we go.

Sampling Twitter for opinion, especially when it's one end for a spectrum really should be banned, for everyone sake. The place is full of idiots and extremists who always seem to be held up as an example of typical. Its bullshit and really winds me up.

Here are some examples of the worst anti Scottish sentiment that I have seen.

In no way is it in the bag for either side. I waver between optimism that Scots are smart enough to choose the Yes option, and pessimism that too many Scots are too scared, servile or self-interested to do so.

The combination of those fearful of change, those self-loathing Scots who think we are incapable, and the combination of the mass media being generally against it will, I think, be too much to overcome.

Both comments come from yes supporters on here. Just because someone does not agree with you it does not make them "scared, servile or self-interested" or "self-loathing Scots". The fact that the majority of Scots are against independence means that the two yes supporters that made these comments actually look down on the majority of Scots.

The fact that the majority of Scots are against independence means that the two yes supporters that made these comments actually look down on the majority of Scots.

That's ok, they're obviously not even properly Scottish.

sbob - Member

I'm sure it will be a No. The combination of those fearful of change, those self-loathing Scots who think we are incapable, and the combination of the mass media being generally against it will, I think, be too much to overcome.

I see you missed out those people that genuinely believe we're all better off in the union.

Wait a sec... He didn't say that all No voters fall into those categories- he said that the combination of those 3 factors might be too much to overcome. That's not the same thing.

Wait a sec... He didn't say that all No voters fall into those categories- he said that the combination of those 3 factors might be too much to overcome. That's not the same thing.

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly what he meant, which he probably why he instantly corrected me.

We appear to be arguing over which side is the rudest when we argue
Surprisingly we are siding with whichever way we would vote [ if we could] surprising eh.
It is almost as if the facts are irrelevant.

sbob - Member

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly what he meant, which he probably why he instantly corrected me.

To be fair, normal people don't hang around the independence thread all day- the lack of a further post is probably evidence of good character 😆

I think the comment could be meant either way but why attribute to unpleasantness what could be down to a difference between writing and reading?

I think the comment could be meant either way but why attribute to unpleasantness what could be down to a difference between writing and reading?

A double A grade in GCSE English, quite simply. 💡

Read the post in its entirety, understand the context, then have another think about it.

Yes, because obviously I didn't read the post first time round, I just quoted randomly 😕 What you're doing is taking comments that are (or, at least, could be) aimed at a specific cross-section of the Scottish public, and choosing to interpret them as being aimed at everyone. Not so much reading between the lines, as writing extra lines between the ones that are there.

Surprisingly we are siding with whichever way we would vote [ if we could] surprising eh.
It is almost as if the facts are irrelevant.

Made-up facts are so much more fun and interesting than the boring old regular ones.

Made-up facts are so much more fun and interesting than the boring old regular ones.

Indeed, that's why both this thread and Yes and No campaigns are full of them 😉

Thanks Northwind. I mulled it over and should probably poke myself in the eye for bothering to respond bit here we go.

There are those who are dead cert yes and those who are dead cert no. If we believe the Polls the gap is closing therefore it will be the undecideds who swing the vote.

Of this group there are those who fear change and there are those who I label self-loathers who think we are so inadequate we rely on those inhabitants of The House of Commons to keep us on an even keel. There is no mention of those who just think the Union is a good thing as common sense dictates they will be in the minds made up No category.

These people who like the idea of independence but think Scots are inadequate I refer to as self loathers. These folks seem to predominantly be of a Scottish Labour persuasion.

Not sure how we got onto zionism? Oh, aye - it was selective quoting.

To be fair you've probably got a few issues yourself if you go around labeling people as "self-loathers".

Shalom

Yeah probably a bit of intolerance of others' opinion, a hefty degree of sarcasm and a bit of a moral superiority complex, hence why i'm persisting in wasting time replying to someone with exactly the same traits

oldnpastit - Member
Surprisingly we are siding with whichever way we would vote [ if we could] surprising eh.
It is almost as if the facts are irrelevant.

[b]Made-up facts are so much more fun and interesting than the boring old regular ones.[/b]

Indeed and there is a free-to-view bumper annual of rib-ticklers available for everyone

No wonder this guy gets booked up to entertain folk.

Here are some examples of the worst anti Scottish sentiment that I have seen

Ha, I knew that someone would leap on what I said. What I said was that I was worried that too many would be scared, servile or self-interested. I did not say that all Scots were, or that all on the No side were. But hey, you carry on with your assumptions of what I think.

That's ok, they're obviously not even properly Scottish.

I don't even know what that means - I was born in Scotland by my parents aren't Scottish, does that help you?

Give g back to what I said, what bits of it specifically are problematic? We know that people are scared to vote Yes - that's why Better Together have been playing the fear card so often. We won't have the pound, we won't have pensions, we won't have a decent health service, etc. We know that people are self-interested - that's why personal finances are such a big deal in the referendum, lots of people are concerned about how it'll affect their finances. Is it the word "servile" that's the problem?

[quote=bencooper ]We've done this before - on average the [b]vocal[/b] people who have a vote are on the Yes side

There are those who are dead cert yes and those who are dead cert no. If we believe the Polls the gap is closing therefore it will be the undecideds who swing the vote.

Latest Daily Record poll has Yes 47%, No 53%. Interestingly, if people are asked how they'd vote if David Cameron was going to be reelected, it switches to Yes 54%, No 46%.

So...the outcome depends on a few short-sighted numpties and David Cameron's electoral chances?

Ben, that says a lot (excuse the irony there) about how this whole narratative is being framed.

It's not about the man, on no wait...

The poll is here http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/bombshell-daily-record-poll-shows-3678091 if you're interested.

A total of 39 per cent plan to vote Yes on September 18, with just 44 per cent saying No.

Dear leader thinks it is partly a popularity contest. In interview a couple of days ago he was saying that it is not all about the message, but rather the messengers. Stating that messrs Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins are far more popular than Darling, Cameron and someone else.

Well, they kind of are.

But as everyone knows, you shouldn't play the man.

The leading edges on both sides of this [s]debate[/s] statement of beliefs really are just a bunch of showers.

I would be far happier with a decisive majority result, but whatever happens. That seems extremely unlikely.

Stating that messrs Sturgeon, Cannavan and Jenkins are far more popular than Darling, Cameron and [b]someone else[/b].

Go on, name them without google.

So...the outcome depends on a few short-sighted numpties and David Cameron's electoral chances?

Well, maybe - there are short-sighted numpties on both sides, though - worries about start-up costs and EU membership are pretty short-sighted.

I suppose the worry about Cameron isn't so much that he wins one more election - it's that the UK is the kind of country that looks at Cameron and all he's done and decides they want more. Whereas people in Scotland don't want to be part of that. He's a symbol for how the UK has shifted to the right.

Scots will back independence if they think David Cameron will remain Prime Minister

Well since when asked the straight question they don't back independence this presumably means that most Scots think that David Cameron won't remain Prime Minister, that's interesting, I can't say that I feel particularly confident that he won't remain PM, although I suspect that he probably won't.

It also suggests that with less a hundred days to go a convincing case for the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" hasn't been made. And to be fair nor has it on this thread.

So clearly the Yes camp's best tactic at this late stage would be to focus on the likelihood of a Tory victory next year and denigrate Labour's chances.

And of course if Labour do win in 2015 and Scots have opted for Yes it will simply add in the coming years to the woes of the nats, as they have to contend with a nation that were unconvinced of the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" and are disappointed by failed promises.

I suppose the worry about Cameron isn't so much that he wins one more election

The Daily Record who's poll results you posted suggests [i]exactly[/i] that, ie, they are concerned that he will remain PM**, beyond that they're not really that concerned. Are you disputing the findings of the poll you posted ?

** Presumably they are unhappy with Cameron because he is a Tory and would feel the same whichever Tory was leader ?

Well since when asked the straight question they don't back independence this presumably means that most Scots think that David Cameron won't remain Prime Minister

Um, no. It shifts by a few percentage points when asked how they'd vote if Cameron was definitely going to remain PM. That's in no way "most Scots".

It also suggests that with less a hundred days to go a convincing case for the benefits of independence beyond "you won't live under a Tory government" hasn't been made. And to be fair nor has it on this thread.

Maybe it's not convinced you, but luckily it is convincing a lot of other people - getting rid of nuclear weapons, being able to control our own affairs for the benefit of people in Scotland, not being over-ruled by our larger neighbour matters to people. It remains to be ween whether it matters to enough people.

The Daily Record who's poll results you posted suggests exactly that, ie, they are concerned that he will remain PM**, beyond that they're not really that concerned. Are you disputing the findings of the poll you posted ?

No, read the rest of what I said.

worries about start-up costs and EU membership are pretty short-sighted.

SNH relocation. Announced Nov 2001. Achieved summer 2006. Holyrood committee examining it later condemned both the inadequate justification for the move and the cost.

Creative Scotland. Its creation announced Jan 2006. Delivered July 2010. For the effective merger of two bodies! The waste of money and the lack of clear political leadership was frigtening.

So go on, please do list examples of public sector change in Scotland which have been managed at speed and low cost to justify your confidence in both the 18 month transition timetable and the set up costs.

Oh ok 🙂

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too). I'm not a SNP supporter, but they haven't made any big mistakes like that, have they?

But, even if you're right and the start-up costs really are as bad as the Treasury's 10x too big estimate, that's still less than half what HS2 would cost Scotland. It's 1/3 what the Trident renewal would cost Scotland. In the absolute, never-going-to-cost-that-much worst case, it's still cheaper than staying part of the UK.

@ben the last Mori poll 10 days ago was No 56 Yes 34 Unknown 10. So those who have expressed a choice its approaching 2:1 in favour of No. If all the unknowns vote Yes the outcome is still No. Anyway polls can be quite fickle and no one is being complacent. Still a long way to go.

It's no surprise AS and the SNP are focusing on Cameron as an individual, he is quite an easy target for left leaning Scotland given his background. It is no surprise that the Yes vote is stronger with the scenario that there is another Conservative government in the UK.

On another topic raised earlier I do think a Yes vote is a vote for AS as Prime Minister and I can see that would hurt rather than help the Yes campaign.

I am surprised at the important of the nuclear issue. Does it really matter whether they are based at Faslane or 5 miles over the border for example.

Yes, of course all polls must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I am surprised at the important of the nuclear issue. Does it really matter whether they are based at Faslane or 5 miles over the border for example.

Yes, for several reasons. For one, we won't be paying for it, so can instead use the money for better things. For another, we won't have the moral responsibility of having them. They won't be 30 miles upwind of our largest city even if they are based 5 miles over the border.

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too). I'm not a SNP supporter, but they haven't made any big mistakes like that, have they?

They were decisions of the Scottish government of the day, you've already pointed out several times that this is a vote for Scottish independence, not an SNP administration, that the system was designed to avoid domination by one party, and that after independence the next government is most unlikely to be SNP led - so how is that supposed to reassure anyone that the huge mistakes and cost overruns are less likely to occur after independence?

So what's special about a Scottish parliament or the Scottish people that we get huge mistakes and cost overruns? Westminster's track record in that direction isn't brilliant either 😉

So what are you saying - that Scottish people just aren't capable of running a country properly? Because those weren't SNP projects, they were Labour ones (and you can add in the trams and parliament too).

I live and work in Scotland in a Scottish Company which is proud of what it and its people achieve. Scots (and the Poles, English, Irish, Oz etc who are all part of the modern Scotland) are capable of wonderful things. But the capacity of the public sector change machine to get bogged down in procedure and consultation and decision avoidance should not be underestimated.

Anyhow, how about those examples to give us confidence it can be done quickly and cheaply?

So what's special about a Scottish parliament or the Scottish people that we get huge mistakes and cost overruns? Westminster's track record in that direction isn't brilliant either

the 18 month transition timetable

Is that remotely likely?

I reckon the UK 2015 General election will scupper that and I would have thought that they'd allow for it, I seem to recall Salmond asking for the election to be postponed 🙂 so they obviously knew there would be an impact but they've stuck with the 18 month time-scale

I can't imagine much parliamentary work going on with an Independence bill much before Q3 2015

I think the 18 month timetable was more about trying to do it before the next Holyrood election than any thoroughly assessed timetable of what could be delivered when.

I think your assessment of the impact of the UK election is about right, but with an added ability for UK manifestos to cover negotiation points on what rUK would or would not agree to with an iS as it is inevitable that in the event of a Yes vote, the negotiating positions of the UK parties will be a significant factor in the election.

As part of the UK, the 'shock' of cost overruns are insured against and absorbed by a much greater and bigger government machine - a £500m cost overrun on one project is fairly inconsequential against an overall £729 billion per annum government budget - whereas a £500m overrun on the one project has a pretty drastic knock on effect on a £65 billion annual budget!

@jota180 +100

Nothing material is going to happen in terms of transition until after the UK election and thereafter the new UK government is going to have many other priorities. I see a transition as being a 3-4 year project and so it should be. As I posted before if there is a Yes vote I expect UK parties will make the negotiations an election issue, effectively asking the UK voters what their stance should be. I can imagine the Tories manifesto could be quite robust in that regard.