Scotland Indyref 2

It's cool that you're saying that the two polls are providing very different results rather than just dismissing the results that don't suit you're point of view. I find it interesting too and it's worth trying to figure out how such radically different results can occur.

The thing is, I think you and I actually agree on a fair bit even though we came to opposite conclusions based on the data available. For example, you made the point earlier (at least I think it was you) that the best condition a country can find itself in is to have the largest possible market for goods and services while retaining as much sovereignty as possible. For me that can be achieved by Scotland becoming independent but for you independence would result in the worst of all worlds.

Also, on currency from what you've said I think we agree on what the best option would be, at least up to a point. For me I'd like Scotland to use it's own currency pegged to a basket of currencies with Sterling and the Euro making up the largest percentage.

From what people say and hints you drop you know a lot about macro-economics and politics. The problem is that you don't really back this up with evidence for your conclusions which makes it really difficult to discuss. It would be great if you could post a few more links and whatnot.

I honestly think it would be an interesting debate, even if it was just in the hypothetical about how small countries should go about managing their currencies.

[quote=epicyclo ]And there you have it.
In the real world the only answer to that is to have a government which is directly accountable to the people of the country, not one in another country which may or may not drip bounty your way.

You're basing that argument on the UK government spending more money in Scotland per capita than in the rUK, which clearly wouldn't happen after independence? 🙄

The ashcroft poll had a sample size of 14 for the 16-17 vote - effectively useless and an offence to statistics to publish it. Even the 18-24 vote has a rather low sample size (84), the rest should all be within 5-10% of the actual population.

I don't know about the yougov poll so won't comment.

Well those Ashcroft graphics show clearly why the SNP was so keen to give 16 & 17 year olds a vote, by a country mile the most pro Indy. Its funny when some of us pointed out that was the reason at the time we where shouted down 🙂

Neither the YouGov or Ashcroft polls contained enough 16-17 year olds to allow any definitive statement to be made.

more Jambanonsense. Its been SNP policy for years to extend the franchise to 16yr olds You see in Scotland you are an adult at 16.

aracer - Member
You're basing that argument on the UK government spending more money in Scotland per capita than in the rUK, which clearly wouldn't happen after independence?

You don't happen to have an S-shaped bed perchance?

TJ it's SNP policy as it's in their interest, cynical politics pure and simple.

Jamba - every time you post on this topic you show your ignorance. Its SNP policy because its consistent with their philosophy

Come off it Jamba

It's not as if the SNP would ever chop and change their policies over principles for short term electoral gain.

Thanks grumpy - I was aware that it was a small sample but didn't want to appear biased! 😉

Bruce - we have an answer! The better/best idea we have is that 16-17 voted in line with everyone else ie, remain just! It's odd after all the polling crap that Ashcroft or anyone would release any poll based on tiny samples.

I am very happy to debate the currency sensibly - but that is not generally possible on here as other struggle to get past the yS BS. But always very happy to have a sensible discussion. Much better that stating facts and then getting - arrogant, ignorant, aspergers thrown back.

On the original thread I tried to get on to a sensible discussion about the currency. So we can do this now. I am not generally in favour of fixed exchange rates but there is a case for a peg for a new Scottish currency as long as people understand the limitations that this involves. The problem with much of the the debate - as typified by the Book of Dreams - was the idea that you really can have your cake and eat it, which of course you cannot.

Sorry for the delay in replying - 3 hours in a car

Jamba - every time you post on this topic you show your ignorance.

Sounds like you are fitting in well too Jambas.

Its SNP policy because its consistent with their philosophy

😀

Example ninfan?

Remember all parties change policy as times and leadership change but I'd like an example

Edit

I bet I can predict which one. Another thing that makes me laugh on these threads is that I can think of several major blunders made by the SNP - but none of the anti snp lot know enough about scottish politics to spot them 😉

Ninfan are you suggesting that wee nippy flip flops around on the 50p MRT to suit the audience and the occasion/time?

Bruce - we have an answer! The better/best idea we have is that 16-17 voted in line with everyone else ie, remain just!

Another assumption to suit your own agenda!

You see in Scotland you are an adult at 16.

So why do 16 and 17 year olds need a state guardian if they are adults? I have no strong feelings either way on them voting, but I do think policy needs to be consistent.

I wonder if the SNP would remove child benefit from this age group if it was devolved...

No km, we have two surveys, one with a larger sample than the other. So probably fair to say that the larger sample is more accurate - or do you know better???

Good to see the ship whining has ceased.

You are right Grumpy - a slightly daft thing to say by me.

Example ninfan?

Remember all parties change policy as times and leadership change but I'd like an example

Salmond was leader of the SNP for over twenty years, and first minister since 2007

From at least [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12207577.Salmond_in_call_to_dump_millstone_of_the_pound/ ]1999[/url] to [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7809700.stm ]2009[/url]) he wanted to adopt the Euro [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4143731/Alex-Salmond-Euro-membership-is-a-strong-argument-for-independence.html ](It's our pound, remember!)[/url] right up until an actual referendum was on the cards...

And that's before we start to discuss 40 years of the SNP wanting out of NATO, right up until, well, right up until an actual referendum was on the cards

And as for head of state...

Probably because someone up there ^ suggested he had it.

I knew you would do the nato one. I consider that to have been a mistake. He rammed it thru against great opposition because he was afraid of being labelled " soft on defence" so a policy change because he was worried about the right wing press rather than because he was chasing public opinion. A blunder

currency - its a really difficult area for the SNP. Policies change as situations change but I think this was their greatest weakness in the independence referendum. He knew he wouldn't be able to sell the euro to the Scots public after Greece and again because of the eurosceptic press. I thiuk they should have gone into the referendum with a list of options on money to be decided by the government of an independent scotland. The £ does belong to scotland tho in part. bank of england is the UK reserve bank and it would make sense economically to have a union - but politically a poor choice. Either we chare the £ or rUK has to buy us out or if the rUK play total hardball cutting off their nose to spite their face then we take non of the debt - which legally we are not obliged to do.

The only one of the three that could be chasing public opinion was the currency issue.

head of state? Irrelevant. A long running schism in the SNPO between republicans and those who like the monarchy. I really don't understand why they shifted but it wa a long time ago. all parties change policy.

Ninfan, just a short list but a good one 🙂

I see the SNP are looking at "joining" the Miller legal action, you'd have thought an actual Government would have brought it's own challenge if it was that important.

TJ cosying up to Trump, encouraging RBS to buy ABN Amro (ludicrous price paid and huge US subprime business) ...

Two of the mistakes Jamba but neither particularly significant especially as RBS were not a scottish bank as such any more doing most of their business in England and it was RBSs mistake not the SNPs.

They now acknowledge Trump to be a mistake as well - one of the things that makes the SNP stand out. Willing to accept when they make mistakes and also willing to say no easy answers to difficult questions unlike other parties who pretend there are easy answers to everything.

If you want to compile a list of tory or labour policy u turns and mistakes you will find a whole lot more 🙂 Cameron especially flip flopped all over the place and May on the EU? she must be dizzy from all the u turns

Two of the mistakes Jamba but neither particularly significant

😀

especially as RBS were not a scottish bank

😀 😀

Bruce, please come back quickly, relieve us from this stuff.

Some much more significant mistakes IMO that because you guys don't know scottish politics you don't know happened.

gordimhor

IIRC there was a bit of speculation about why THM behaves in the unpleasnt and peculiar way he does and aspergers was put as one possibility by someone - not by me tho
*ducks banhammer*

I knew you would do the nato one. I consider that to have been a mistake. He rammed it thru against great opposition because he was afraid of being labelled " soft on defence" so a policy change because he was worried about the right wing press rather than because he was chasing public opinion. A blunder

So, as I alleged, a revealed willingness to chop and change their policies over principles for short term electoral gain.

As for it being a 'mistake' - what? How is a deliberate policy judgement a 'mistake'? Picking up the wrong bag at the airport is a 'mistake' - deliberately choosing a policy that is unpopular amongst your membership, and something you personally spent years arguing for, then pushing it through for political expediency isn't a mistake, it's a deliberate act. You could call it a misjudgement, others would more accurately call it disingenuous, opportunism, misguided, unprincipled or hypocritical.

It's like saying becoming best mates with Trump was an accident, or that freeing Al-Megrahi was a slip of the pen, or that spending £250 on tartan trews then trying to hide it was an accounting error.

They weren't mistakes, they were incompetence

No not incompetence - in my view misjudgement. Politically tho not a misjudement to stop your enemies having a target-and not to attract votes in the cynical way labour and the tories will adopt policies because they think they will resonate with the public but to close down an opportuntiy 'cos he knew the right wing press would be gunning for him. Probably actually cost him a few votes and he would know that.

Whatever you think of Salmond - a fairly slippery political operator - incompetence is not something you can level at him.

Trump was a clear error of judgement - and one he has admitted to. When did you last hear a politician admit to making an error of judgement. Did cameron say he was wrong to hold the EU referendum? Something with much more serious consequences. Did Blair say going into Iraq was wrong?

Hey Ninfan - I did you the service of answering your question reasonably - continue the debate in the same light?

The ends have always justified the means

#SDBMB

So Gordi how proud do your fellows make you feel? True colours.....

I can't see anything unreasonable in my response TJ, perfectly reasonable for me to raise more of Salmonds little 'mistakes'

Trump was a clear error of judgement

incompetence is not something you can level at him.

How many 'clear errors of judgement' do you get make before you can label someone as incompetent?

Tone ninfan - its the tone of your answers.
Something that has significant effects on the government? Trump was allowed to mess up some rare duneland. Its nothing on the scale of Iraq or EU referendum.

Maybe something that loses you an election? something that cost lives ( actually there is one that cost live that I remain very angry about but I ain't telling yo what)

I dunno but judged against his political career this is small beer. How much influence do you really think he had over RBS?

Tony Benn said all political careers end in failure - its hard to think of an exception to this.

Freeing Al-Megrahi wasn't a mistake.

km79 - Member

Freeing Al-Megrahi wasn't a mistake

That depends on whether you look at it from a humanitarian or a political point of view, absolutely correct from a humanitarian point, a bit daft as a politician. I was pleased they were willing to take the flak for it.

duckman - Member
That depends on whether you look at it from a humanitarian or a political point of view, absolutely correct from a humanitarian point, a bit daft as a politician. I was pleased they were willing to take the flak for it.

Epic, please don't agree with me, I don't want to be put in THM's WoS or " Angry Nats" folder. I have always wondered if there was something else going on there,trade wise.

IIRC Blair was trying to set up some sort of deal but was told the decision was for Holyrood not Westminster. I don't think there was any deal - I think the decision was made solely on the case and although it was supposedly humanitarian I actually think it was because the justice minister knew it was a huge miscarriage of justice

You can bog off as well! Mind you the overthrow of Gadaffi ****ed that up. Good job it has all ended so well for the US and UK.

I don't want to be put in THM's WoS or " Angry Nats" folder.

You are safe there ducks. No one would ever accuse you of being that well read.

Are you going to answer Gordi? He has asked you politely twice now.

Me Duckman?

Certainly thm,in fact I already have. Tell me something first; do you sometimes struggle to accept other people's point of view? ( your posts would suggest that is the case)

You are safe there ducks. No one would ever accuse you of being that well read.

Oh dear; insults,despite constantly trying to play the victim. Let's look at my extensive reading shall we? From a favourite book of yours...
New International Version Matthew 7.5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Who mentioned aspergers and why?

Good luck with the plank - take it slowly, it might hurt

The education and medical professions being represented rather poorly. Plus ca change.

What do you do for a living THM?

You won't get an answer km. I find it interesting that most of the lefties on the political threads make it fairly clear what they do, the righties hide their identity and work.

(comment about THMs attitude deleted)

(that old transparent chestnut)

told you he wouldn't answer.

Thanks for clearing things up Duckman.

Thm I owe you an apology I should have read on from where I previously left off before posting. Sorry.

Meantime Thm I believe your question about 16-17 year olds has been answered yet I see no links about the 18 ships.
Or did BBC Scotland actually get this one right

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37871888
Edit

told you he wouldn't answer.

How do you know?

😀

No need Gordi.

(pleased to say that D and I have had more pleasant comments elsewhere 🙂 )

Aracer 😀 Sometimes you wished that people were good to their word!! 😉

Gordi, will do the link, sorry. Just watching Parks and MTB and physical geography - Cwm Idwal now where I spent lots of my school days.

Crikey, Scotland not independent yet? 😆

Sturgeon really needs to up her efforts with this one agenda party. Yes?

Scotland will only gain independence when the world is at peace ... long long time into the future when all our brains have developed a bit better.

The announcement confirms claims that orders on the Clyde have now increased over what was previously promised with the Clyde building 5 Offshore Patrol vessels, 8 Type 26 Frigates and “at least” 5 Type 31 Frigates. [b]That’s 18 ships compared to the 13 originally promised.[/b]

Showing further commitment to the Type 26 programme, the Defence Secretary also announced a £100 million contract with MBDA to deliver the Sea Ceptor self-defence missile system for the ship.

UK Defence Journal 4 November 2014

What do you do for a living THM?

Why even ask, any pigeon holed "right winger" is ridiculed and insulted anyway ?

I owe you an apology as well THM, that was a pretty unpleasant post I made.

Me too (although I enjoyed the line about reading 😉 it was really only a joke,if a cheeky one,!)

As well that ends well

Why even ask, any pigeon holed "right winger" is ridiculed and insulted anyway ?

Because he commented on other posters professions and I wondered which profession he himself represents poorly.

😀

15 hundred

Well I read your quotes from the 2014 article and this,
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/where-will-type-31-frigate-built/
Which leads me to agree with Douglas Fraser

Sorry Gordi, my typo erro. My quote is from [b]4 Nov 2016[/b] so I stand by my comments too

I was watching TV while posting earlier link!

So still typical SNP BS designed to fool the gullible or those who are too trusting of those who are supposed to represent THEM

Ah Yes BBC Scotland that well known snp mouthpiece

Possibly one of the only positives of a Trump win tomorrow would be watching the SNP suck up to him as POUS, an iS couldn't join NATO without US backing 😉

Come on jambalaya you're a secret Trumper

Both sides can spin it.

13 frigates! Westy ahead

Actually 8. SNP and the unions pull one back

More wee ones! Westminster score again.

But not if you leave! Late equaliser.

In these times with the amount of subbied work to the Pacific, I am delighted that the industry that built a third of all tonnage on the ocean before WW1 is safe for approx 20 years. ( surely can't take 20 years to build 8 ships?) Both sides have used the shipbuilding/ defence industry as a football. IMO

Not really. The only deviation has been a defecne review in the middle of the process. Other than that Scotland is getting more than was promised which should be good news not a cause for Nats scoring their usual own goals. In what way would fewer ships be a goal for the unions??? That seems a particular twist of logic.

Bottom line, Scotland has won the business. Good news or bad? There is no need to spin anything

#SDBMB

It allowed the Unions to shout at the current government about broken promises, last paragraph. Which in all fairness isn't a exclusively Scottish trait.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37861162

jambalaya - Member
Possibly one of the only positives of a Trump win tomorrow would be watching the SNP suck up to him as POUS, an iS couldn't join NATO without US backing

Aye, right.

NATO couldn't possibly see any benefit on having a nation with a huge North Atlantic coastline that commands half the entrance to the North Sea as a member. Perhaps the Russians could see the benefit of a naval base here... 🙂

Not that It bothers me either way. There's pluses and minuses. (Well not the Russians 🙂 )

As for the frigates, has anything concrete been signed? Something irrevocable? Because until it has been, I'll regard this as just an early "vow" to dangle in front of the voters prior to the next referendum. And we all know how good those vows are.

No contracts have been signed yet. Its just a promise

My understanding is that the T26 order has been confirmed plus the bonus patrol vessels "to be signed shortly."

It's v easy to overlook that there was a Defence Review in the middle of all of this that reviewed what was required and that at the moment, the only thing that we now is that Scottish yards have had good news for jobs etc.

Very odd that this needs to be twisted at all but duckman, the Union rep seemed pretty upbeat in your link. So he should be, good news.

Except of course for those who oppose the level of defence spending and claim that this is a problem for Scotland and should be reduced -[s] fortunately that camp is quiet at the moment 😉 a welcome development too[/s] edit: as you were

No contracts have been signed yet. Its just a promise

The thing about defence procurement is that you usually know what is coming well before the contracts are signed. There may be no contractual obligation on either party yet, but both know what they are planning.

The guys I know from Naval Ships seem pretty chuffed at the moment, I don't get why we are talking both Scotland and MoD down.

...because the ends justify the means. There is nothing new here tactically. Same old, same old.

Say after me, "The positive outlook for Shipbuilding on the Clyde is another strong reason why Scotland should vote for independence." Apparently, after the 249rd repetition, you might start to believe it.

grumpysculler - Member
...The guys I know from Naval Ships seem pretty chuffed at the moment, I don't get why we are talking both Scotland and MoD down.

We're not talking them down.

We're just treating a promise from Westminster as being worth the paper it's written on. And unless it is set in stone, Westminster is quite capable of having another review....

It's good news - if it really happens.

teamhurtmore - Member
...Say after me, "The positive outlook for Shipbuilding on the Clyde is another strong reason why Scotland should vote for independence." Apparently, after the 249rd repetition, you might start to believe it.

It is. You do realise Scotland will need a Navy, and ships will have to be built, so it's fairly obvious where that would happen. A win either way.

epicyclo - Member
You do realise Scotland will need a Navy, and ships will have to be built

I'm struggling to find a good reason why we need a navy? To scare off those pesky spanish fishermen?

As for royal navy orders, ho hum, the clyde should develop itself in to a civilian ship building industry, if it can't do that it doesn't deserve to exist.

As for royal navy orders, ho hum, the clyde should develop itself in to a civilian ship building industry, if it can't do that it doesn't deserve to exist.

We're just treating a promise from Westminster as being worth the paper it's written on. And unless it is set in stone, Westminster is quite capable of having another review....

True, and so it should. Totally proper that Defence Spending should be subject to review and scrutiny - not something to be considered lightly, We have had one since then and the results are out. Plus, if the Scottish Government and a minority of its people are agitating for independence, the Government should maintain an appropriate level of flexibility in terms of future procurement. Basic common sense.

You do realise Scotland will need a Navy, and ships will have to be built, so it's fairly obvious where that would happen.

Norway?

The shipyards have always had the problem of keeping enough work to maintain the workforce, and they have a reasonable (if fractious at times) relationship with MoD to make that happen. If you cannot sustain the workforce full time then the yard would close.

Where will an independent Scotland find the money to keep the same volume of orders going as the UK does? BAE Systems have not been able to develop much of an export business - some of the competition has too much advantage over them. So are you relying on BAE being able to do something it has never been able to do so before?

BAE Systems cannot afford the investment that would be needed upfront to make it commercially viable and for the government to provide it would be illegal state support.

That's the same reason only warships are built there and not support vessels - the British/Scottish shipyards are quite expensive and so it is a strategic decision to build ships domestically and not an economic one.

They could look for orders from Europe - wee nippy could start by lobbying the Swiss Navy

They could look for orders from Europe - wee nippy could start by lobbying the Swiss Navy

I suppose that investment from the Chinese is out then?

😉