Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    It's not about swallowing any deal. The vote is for independence. The deal after that is about process it's not about independence. This is something created in the minds of troublemakers to stir up doubt. Yes means independence one way or the other. We are not going to have a yes vote and say och we don't like the deal so can we just stay in the UK. That is the implication and that would go against every UN charter on democratic will of the people. The governments job is to deal with the process the result is given by the people already by voting yes.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 30.9k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    • Scottish-Irish Skier

      8874

    • mountain shadow

      1528

    • skifreak

      1435

    • frogesque

      1306

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

    Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

    I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    I meant to add that the people have the option to vote Yes or No. In voting yes they give a mandate for the government to negotiate independence. The people will not decide on the internal and external agreements of the government. Unless you are suggesting we have multiple referendums on every instituation in the UK. The process is simple Yes = mandate. Mandate = Scottish government negotiates independence on behalf of the people.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    Poor Margo won't get to see her dream of Independence fulfilled..

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26883278

     

    As soon as I read this, Martin Luther King's speech came to mind...

     

    "Like anybody, I would like to live - a long life; longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

     

    A formidable lovely women who will be a big loss to the Scottish political scene.

     

    Rest in Peace Margo.

    • Like 4
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

     

    Under our existing constitution, the final decision about Scottish independence rests with the UK Parliament, which will confer sovereignty on Scotland through a statute.

     

     

    How benevolent. I'll prostrate myself on the steps of Westminster in gratitude.

     

    So Scotland is a possession of the UK? It belongs to England? Here was me thinking Scotland voluntarily joined the union and was one of the equal 'family of nations' that it comprised. 

     

    Nick, the UK has no constitution. There is no such thing as British law and certainly not British constitutional law. The moment someone says those words I know they are talking rubbish. 

     

    Likewise, there is no such thing as 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' in Scotland. That's a completely English concept and does not apply in Scots Law as test cases have demonstrated.

     

    If Scotland votes Yes, that's it. It doesn't matter a monkey's what Westminster thinks. It's what the world thinks that's most important.

     

    This is not a bit of Britain leaving the UK, it is one of the two founding members of the UKoGB ending the treaty that created the UKoGB. There will be no UKoGB if Scotland votes Yes. The union flag will cease to represent anything. There will be no rUK union; that will in theory require a new treaty of union with N. Ireland, just as was the case when Eire left.

     

    Every time someone says 'You need Westminster's ('England's' as English MPs make up the vast majority of MPs) permission for indy', further Yes votes are secured in large numbers at it tells people exactly what they've been thinking: England does not see Scotland as an equal partner, but a colonial possession.

     

    The Edinburgh Agreement was signed as Westminster doesn't have a leg to stand on under Scots, European and international law; the three 'legal jurisdictions' which cover the referendum. Scotland has always been able to vote for independence if it wished - 'You just need to vote for the SNP' has been the message from Westminster right back to the SNP's founding. Scotland doesn't need permission, however, to save face, Westminster has gone along with it as, short of sending in tanks, there's naff all it can do.

     

    EDIT

     

    This is a good summary of the Treaty of union and implications for 'constitutional' issues.

     

    http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx#.URqgUqU2mWY

     

    I pick out a couple of quotes:

     

    From the outset the true legal nature of the Union of 1706-07 has not been properly understood, particularly in England, and there have been consequential mistakes in talking and writing about it, evidenced particularly by the way in which Scottish historians normally refer to the Treaty of Union, and English historians, and most politicians and members of the general public, normally speak of the Act or Acts of Union. Even the Royal Mint commemorative £2 coin of 2007 is advertised as marking the “Act†of Union.

     

     

    Even the Royal Mint is clueless...

     

    Hence be wary of English lawyers unqualified to practice, never mind discuss, Scots law.

     

    On parliamentary Sovereignty:

     

    In his judgment in McCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 Lord President Cooper, admittedly obiter, observed that the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament was a distinctively English principle which had no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. In particular the Lord Advocate had conceded in that case that the Parliament of Great Britain could not repeal or alter fundamental and essential conditions of the Treaty and associated legislation.

     

     

    In Scotland, while not specifically enshrined, the strongest argument you have is popular sovereignty since the Deceleration of Arbroath (1320). It's why Lizze is Queen of England (+Wales) but not Queen of Scotland, rather Queen of Scots. 

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

     

    A formidable lovely women who will be a big loss to the Scottish political scene.

     

    Rest in Peace Margo.

     

    Incredibly sad. 

     

    A massive loss to Scotland. What a pity - so close to September too. A real honest, conviction politician with a heart of gold (and balls of steel).

     

    It was Margo and our brief chats when I worked in a shop she came into regularly when I was a student that part inspired my interest in politics.

     

    Rest in peace. 

     

    I'll lift a dram to her memory tonight.

     

    ---

     

    EDIT

     

    I'm hearing that as she was an independent list MP, her seat will remain empty until the next election.

     

    Fitting. 

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    It's not about swallowing any deal. The vote is for independence. The deal after that is about process it's not about independence. This is something created in the minds of troublemakers to stir up doubt. Yes means independence one way or the other. We are not going to have a yes vote and say och we don't like the deal so can we just stay in the UK. That is the implication and that would go against every UN charter on democratic will of the people. The governments job is to deal with the process the result is given by the people already by voting yes.

    You've missed the point, I never questioned whether a Yes would lead to independence, my post clearly states that official independence will just be a matter of time not whether its possible to turn the clock back after the vote. Jeez this is why so many people get frustrated with the debate, its simply impossible for a single negative or a problem to  be suggested and all you hear back is its either scare mongering or being a troublemaker!

     

    The point I was making was that Scottish voters aren't going to give Alex Salmond free reign to do whatever he likes in those negotiations, whatever deal he agrees to has to have the Scottish public behind it.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    The point I was making was that Scottish voters aren't going to give Alex Salmond free reign to do whatever he likes in those negotiations, whatever deal he agrees to has to have the Scottish public behind it.

     

    'Alex Salmond'.

     

    You need to stop making that mistake Nick. 

     

    People might have a valid point, but as soon as they use the AS word in the context you have, it immediately either suggests they have little to no understanding of the situation (common to people outside Scotland), or that they are irrational in hatred (common to pro-union people in Scotland). This seriously negates arguments from the start.

     

    If I said 'David Cameron' in the same way, it would have the same effect.

     

    I suggest you use 'Scottish Government' or, more correctly, 'Holyrood Parliament'. Alex Salmond is only one of 128 (formerly 129) MSPs representing in a quite proportional manner, the electorate of Scotland.

     

    ---

     

    EDIT this is particularly pertinent this evening given the passing of 'Margo'. Nearly as well known as Salmond in Scotland.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    'Alex Salmond'.

     

    You need to stop making that mistake Nick. 

     

    People might have a valid point, but as soon as they use the AS word in the context you have, it immediately either suggests they have little to no understanding of the situation (common to people outside Scotland), or that they are irrational in hatred (common to pro-union people in Scotland). This seriously negates arguments from the start.

     

    If I said 'David Cameron' in the same way, it would have the same effect.

     

    I suggest you use 'Scottish Government' or, more correctly, 'Holyrood Parliament'. Alex Salmond is only one of 128 (formerly 129) MSPs representing in a quite proportional manner, the electorate of Scotland.

     

    ---

     

    EDIT this is particularly pertinent this evening given the passing of 'Margo'.

    SS in terms of what needs to happen re the path to Independence, please don't shoot the messenger because your own Scottish government website states why several bills will need to be passed by Holyrood and Westminster:

     

    Below is the extract that deals with that:

     

    Soon after a Yes vote in the referendum, the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments will need to pass legislation to give the Scottish Parliament powers to: declare independent statehood for Scotland in the name of the sovereign people of Scotland; amend the Scotland Act 1998; and extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government into all policy areas currently reserved to Westminster, in order to make preparations for independence.

     

    I know this might annoy some Yes supporters but I'm sorry I'm just stating facts. From all the sources I've read Westminster has to pass a Bill to pass over powers, its not about the rUK giving Scotland independence, its about giving  the Scottish parliament powers needed so it can declare Independence by itself.

     

    The declaration of Independence is not a matter for anyone but Holyrood, if you managed to read the whole article I linked to you'll see it gives some time to why the SNP prefer the March date and I can understand that they have good reasons for that politically however its very unlikely that the SNP won't win your next elections if you vote Yes.

     

    And yes I've seen the news re Margo MacDonald, I know she is very well regarded in Scotland by all sides , it's especially poignant as she won't be here to celebrate a Yes win if that does happen.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Nick

     

    My original point is more 'Westminster has no choice'.

     

    There are plenty of stories on this topic in the media and comments on here which suggest that Scottish independence must be give the 'ok' by Westminster. This isn't true and that was my point.

     

    The Scottish Government fully appreciate that allowing the UK government to 'save face' (for want of better words) by seeming to 'grant permission' is the best way forward. A UDI would not be wise unless put in a position where there was no choice. This is simply down to Scotland being small and international politics.

     

    The reality is that no permission is needed for Scotland to be independent given the origins of the union. However, the world is watching and the world decides if Scotland is independent. Some countries in the world can be uncomfortable with bits going for independence in UDI style and do not necessarily appreciate history/circumstances for their own motives. Hence, the current approach is a sensible and pragmatic one, even if it is not legally needed. It's all political.

     

    My point about 'Westminster granting independence undermines the case for the union' is very true. Ironic in a big way; i.e. that it is best for the 'British' government to be seen to be 'granting' Scotland independence on the world stage (while it is against that), yet at the same time this 'granting' approach encourages Scottish independence by making it appear Scotland is not an equal partner.

     

    I'm one of the 'pragmatic / step by step' independence people, i.e. one of the 1/3 Devo Max (on top of the 1/3 full indy right now) who has now moved to openly indy. In that sense, the Scottish Government approach doesn't annoy me. Some of the ignorance about Scotland in the English/British media and the Treaty of Union does at times though. In fact that is just another bit of what drove me towards indy.

     

    In the end, even if all but the 6 SNP/650 MPs didn't want Scottish independence, a bill to end the union will still pass through the Westminster parliament because it has no option but to do so if Scots votes Yes. A mere formality. Not actually permission of any real sort.

     

    Hope this clarifies my point.

     

    ---

     

    RE Margo.

     

     

    Aye.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    SS I don't see what the disagreement is, as I've stated many times Westminster has to honour the Yes result, and yes it has no choice because to put it in a nutshell Westminster can't go round the world preaching democracy and then stop the will of the Scottish people to become independent.

     

    This isn't the issue but its the process to get there that I'm simply stating which isn't going to be the seemless transition that Yes envisages, aswell as this do you honestly expect a Bill to pass Westminster with a fill in at a later date outcome on some issues.

     

    You seem to forget that there will be problems on both sides re what they're willing to give up, aswell as this an independent Scotland needs to agree deals on key areas aside from assets/currency/debt/oil/gas etc.

     

    The main problem is the General Election will delay a lot of the negotiations and the SNP can't force Westminster to rush through a range of deals just to satisfy the March 2016 date.

     

    If it takes more time IMO its better to get there a bit slower with good agreements and not some hashed together outcome just to satisfy some symbolic date which has little chance of being met.

    Edited by nick sussex
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Alresford, Near Colchester, Essex
  • Weather Preferences: As long as it's not North Sea muck, I'll cope.
  • Location: Alresford, Near Colchester, Essex

    Can't be bothered to trawl through all the arguments on this thread (I do remember being in Jasper, Canada - a good beginners' resort - a fair few years ago and meeting a 'Scottish Skier' who'd skied every named run in Scotland, including 'the Tiger', but then he'd messed up somewhere and skied into a tree and lost his nerve completely Posted Image)

     

    I've made my mind up on what I'd like - I've not visited this thread for a year or so and I won't be back, so people are free to slate me as much as they like, as I won't be reading it. Posted Image - My Grandfather on my Father's side was Scottish and my Mother's ancestry was Irish for a few generations ( back until the potato famine, when records were lost) but I'm way more proud of my Irish heritage. Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

     

    All I'll say is that in my opinion, the UK is a shambles. A huge kick up the backside is needed. I'm minded that Scotland should vote for independence and it has very little to do with much else, other than that we have a rotten, nearly 1,000 year old establishment. It needs to go - and I'm not really talking about the Royal Family - okay they head it, but I think they can be accommodated in a brighter future. 
     
    Have courage Scotland, you'll do all of us a favour in the end. Posted Image
     
    Unfortunately I don't want Mr. Loathsome Potato Head to take credit. Posted Image He strikes me as anti English. 
     
    IMO, vote for your independence and then vote for something better than the SNP once you've got it. Posted Image
     
    Over and out for good. Posted Image
    • Like 3
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level
  • Location: Maddiston , Falkirk, Scotland 390ft above sea level

    I wish people wouldn't personalise the debate.Its not about Salmond and its not about character assasination.There are so many people who hate Salmond just because he is clever.He is not a monster just a man doing a job for his nation.He is the only man in my mind who should be the first Prime Minister of Scotland at present.If we do get independence its his reward for taking us to freedom.Without Salmond there would be no SNP majority and we wouldn't be having a referendum.Sure there are other talented people in the SNP but he is a leader and should lead an independent Scotland.I wouldn't say he was anti English it doesn't really matter.What matters is he wants the best for Scotland and always has done.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    SS I don't see what the disagreement is, as I've stated many times Westminster has to honour the Yes result, and yes it has no choice because to put it in a nutshell Westminster can't go round the world preaching democracy and then stop the will of the Scottish people to become independent.

     

    Sorry, a bit of confusion going on - I wasn't specifically arguing with you, but rather with those who suggest that everything needs to be done with the permission of Westminster.

     

    I guess memories of 'You don't have the right to hold a referendum without Westminster's permission' are all too fresh in my mind. Post 2011 election, this was what was being said by a large number of pro-union people. While the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement ended that (much to the consternation of those saying a referendum should only be advisory etc), it didn't change the impression being put across that Scotland's independence was somehow something it needed the ok from Westminster for. This is what irritated me.

     

    As for independence and the negotiated aspects... I stand by my understanding that if Scotland votes Yes, then from the moment of the result Scotland is defacto independent. It would be against every democratic principle if this was not the case. A Yes means the Scottish Government is the only Scottish Government from the day the result is announced. Scots will have transferred sovereignty fully back to Scotland.

     

    You would then enter what is essentially a reversal of what happened in 1707. The Scottish and Westminster parliaments would both pass acts rescinding the Treaty of Union, just as both passed acts to put it into place originally. It's not Westminster saying 'Ok, we are now passing your taxes to you', rather it is as much the Scottish Government saying 'Right, all taxes in Scotland are now the property of the Scottish Government'. Note, for example, on the latter point the Scottish government would have the power to just stop all taxes going to London if this was really needed. After all, the Scottish Police and courts are Scottish and under the power of Holyrood already. It would be chaotic if it had to be pushed, but the point is it could be.

     

    Independence in the 'UN ambassador, new MEPs, seat the council of Europe' etc does not require that every last detail is agreed by both sides. That could drag on for decades over the smallest thing if that was the case. Rather, from the moment of a Yes you are looking at the governments of two equal countries negotiating. This will not be all done as a oner, but rather in stages. By March 2016, the goal is to have got Scotland to the point of 'Devo Max' at least, even if there are still ongoing discussions about aspects such as overseas assets, debt etc.

     

    Every expert with sense I've read says that the moment a Yes is declared, the UK government will become accommodating, as would the Scottish Government. A rough transition would hurt the UK equally as much as Scotland, particularly economically. The markets wouldn't have it being awkward. If you want to sort things out quickly, you can. It has been done many times before across the globe. 

     

    The only issue that apparently there is some disagreement on is currency vs debt. Yet, for example, Scotland's largest industry which keeps the UK moving - oil and gas - is not remotely worried about this. Why? Because they've been told not to worry. This is what I'm basically told when asking around in Aberdeen.

     

    I'm of the opinion that negotiations have been going on since May 2011. I can't believe that's not the case - that would be nuts. We know the Scottish Government and UK governments have been jointly meeting with the EU, NATO etc. Of course they have been! Likewise, you can be sure they do have a short term position on currency (union), although may be still disagreeing on long term.

     

    RE the general election. I still don't believe Scots MPs will be standing for this if there is a Yes. That would make no sense at all. Why would they stand for a Parliament that no longer has any power/mandate over Scotland? Why would MPs from a defacto independent Scotland be voting on rUK matters? When asked about this in the past, Angus Robertson let slip that SNP MPs would not be standing in 2015 if it was a Yes. I take this to mean all Scots MPs. 

     

    A change of rUK government in 2015 would not impact negotiations much if at all. Not unless the rUK elected some rabid nationalistic crazy government hell bent on punishing Scotland irrespective of the economic and social damage it would cause to the rUK. This seems highly unlikely.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

    I wish people wouldn't personalise the debate.Its not about Salmond and its not about character assasination.There are so many people who hate Salmond just because he is clever.He is not a monster just a man doing a job for his nation.He is the only man in my mind who should be the first Prime Minister of Scotland at present.If we do get independence its his reward for taking us to freedom.Without Salmond there would be no SNP majority and we wouldn't be having a referendum.Sure there are other talented people in the SNP but he is a leader and should lead an independent Scotland.I wouldn't say he was anti English it doesn't really matter.What matters is he wants the best for Scotland and always has done.

     

    Salmond's problem is that he comes across as insufferably smug on tv - it's his smirk that comes on whenever he thinks he's made some particularly clever point that no-one else has made before, that makes him so unattractive.  No-one doubts he's clever, it's just that he's a preening politician.

     

    (sorry, not really relevant to the independence debate...)

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Scotland Yes vote now neck and neck

     

    SUPPORT for Scottish independence has hit a record high with the yes and no campaigns almost neck and neck five months from the referendum, according to a new poll.

     

    With the cross-party no campaign under pressure to sharpen up after a series of gaffes, the Panelbase results show the unionist lead among voters has been cut from more than 24 points last year to six points this weekend.

     

    The findings by the polling company, which had been the first to identify an SNP lead ahead of Alex Salmond’s surprise landslide Scottish election win in 2011, give credence to private claims by nationalists that the yes vote could be in front by July.

     

    The poll for the pro-independence political website Wings Over Scotland finds that when the 14% of voters who are undecided are excluded, 47% intend to vote yes and 53% no. It is the nationalists’ best rating so far this year.

     

    Posted Image

     

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/ScottishReferendum/article1396930.ece

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NH7256
  • Weather Preferences: where's my vote?
  • Location: NH7256

    Yeah but look who's publishing the data. Stats are best presented by the unbiased.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    Yeah but look who's publishing the data. Stats are best presented by the unbiased.

    ???The poll was "commissioned" by Wings Over Scotland but performed by Panelbase, one of the main, reputable polling organisations. It wasn't just some poll on the WOS website. If it was it wouldn't have made it onto the Sunday Times front page, or got more than one mention on TV this morning. I'm sure SS will be along soon with an analysis of the Panel base data.Darling on Sunday Politics was entertaining. Its true that NO maintain a lead in the polls but for Darling to continue to claim that the polls aren't narrowing is just a joke. Either that or he's in denial. He'd be much better admitting it, because not all the recent poles can be "outliers", and saying they have a plan to turn it around (which is always a possibility).
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    The latest panelbase poll just confirms the last one was not an outlier. Also consistent with steadily rising Yes which has gone from being ostensibly up to 24 points behind, to being at best 5 points. This is mainly down to a direct swing from No (much of the No is soft), although Yes has been gaining a bit from DK recently as this has started to edge down.

     

    I've not seen anything obviously wrong with panelbase, it uses largely the same methodology as ICM and what Survation are using now. These are all giving similar Yes values of 4/10 with No 4.5/10. Basically, returning to long term baselines...

     

    The Tables will come out in the next day or two. It's a wings poll, crowd-funded as usual, so will contain lots of interesting questions. Wings run the questions by Prof at Edinburgh Uni (EDIT, this guy http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/staff/politics/james_mitchell and I assume this was done again for this poll) to check they are not leading etc. Also, all Wings articles on the poll are run past panelbase to ensure that results are fairly presented.

     

    As I've said before, straight Y/N polls do not predict what will happen; ask people the i question in an indirect way and you get parity. Ask them in a way that doesn't involve the i word at all so no shyness and you get Yes ahead. TY/N are decent for trends though and the trend is rock solid Yes climbing and No faltering.

     

    Going to be very interesting poll watching over the next ~5.5 months.

     

    You can see how worried Darling is getting on the Marr show. Marr is really soft on him but that doesn't stop 777 blinks in 10 mins.

     

     

    http://wingsoverscotland.com/blink-when-youre-lying/

     

    Blink when you are lying
     
    “A person who is lying will blink a lot, as blinking seems to correlate to the amount of mental stress we are under. In a normal conversation where a person is attuned to you, he will blink at roughly the same rate as you, often at moments when you pause in your speech. Be wary of someone who is blinking frantically as they speak with you.â€
     
    Hmm.
     
    “The average person blinks every five seconds. But when they lie, they’ll blink more – every two or three seconds. Liars also take longer to respond to questions, probably because they have to constantly cook up creative answers and need to recall previous mistruths.â€
     
    One every five seconds would be 120 in 10 minutes. You do the maths.

     

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Paris suburbs
  • Location: Paris suburbs

    ???The poll was "commissioned" by Wings Over Scotland but performed by Panelbase, one of the main, reputable polling organisations. It wasn't just some poll on the WOS website. If it was it wouldn't have made it onto the Sunday Times front page, or got more than one mention on TV this morning. I'm sure SS will be along soon with an analysis of the Panel base data.Darling on Sunday Politics was entertaining. Its true that NO maintain a lead in the polls but for Darling to continue to claim that the polls aren't narrowing is just a joke. Either that or he's in denial. He'd be much better admitting it, because not all the recent poles can be "outliers", and saying they have a plan to turn it around (which is always a possibility).

    Wings of Scotland commissioned Panelbase to carry out a poll last summer to give Yes a 1% lead, but despite it being done by a 'reputable polling organisation', it was obviously and indisputably flawed: the independence question that produced this Yes lead followed two questions: one asked whether voters thought Scotland could be a successful independent country, and the other asked which out of the Westminster and Scottish governments is best to trust to make Scotland's decisions. Obviously, these are pertinent questions that voters should be asking themselves, but nevertheless they aren't questions that will appear in the actual referendum, and therefore the poll was flawed.That it was covered by the Sunday Times doesn't mean that it's reputable - the media are unreliable. We're on a weather forum, and we all know how inaccurate and baseless predictions for the next winter/summer normally. Having said that, the poll this time does seem to actually be mimicking the referendum, and 53% No/47% Yes could well be an accurate barometer.
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    I was looking back at all the recent referenda in more developed  nations and the results, the lowest win was Yes with 75 percent, generally these have all been won with figures in the 80's and 90's.

     

    Unless something remarkable happens its very unlikely that there will be that clear a win for Yes so lets say Yes manages a 60/40 win how does this play out with those who said No, how does Scotland come together and unite.

     

    Again this is similar for a No win, its very unlikely that the vote there will be less than 40 percent Yes unless theres some curveball thrown into proceedings.

     

    The thing that marks out Scotlands referendum from many others is that its current economy is far superior to that of any of those previous countries where we saw a very clear mandate, that essentially there wasn't that much to lose economically.

     

    This referendum has every chance of leaving a large swathe of Scottish voters deeply unhappy and this IMO is the biggest problem going forward regardless of the result.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Wings of Scotland commissioned Panelbase to carry out a poll last summer to give Yes a 1% lead,

     

    That was the SNP, not wings.

     

    http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/SNPPollTables020903.pdf

     

    Very interesting that even back then, this Q: 

     

    Q1. Do you agree or disagree Base: with the following statement: "Scotland could be a successful, independent country"
    52% Yes
    37% No
     
     
    Which is why I warn people to not read too much into straight Y/N. Folk are much more shy when you say the 'i' word.
     
    To paraphrase Margo on the polls: 'Scots are just being polite'.
     
    The unionist SoS for Scotland also said this in a different way as I've quoted before.
     
     
    If you know you shouldn't do something but for an emotional reason you are going to do it anyway, then you won’t admit to pollsters what you are going to do.
     
    “You’ll say you haven’t made your mind up, but know exactly what you are doing but won’t admit it because you are making a judgement that is emotional rather than intellectual.â€

     

     
    Both have access to much more detailed polling than we do.
    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I was looking back at all the recent referenda in more developed  nations and the results, the lowest win was Yes with 75 percent, generally these have all been won with figures in the 80's and 90's.

     

    Unless something remarkable happens its very unlikely that there will be that clear a win for Yes so lets say Yes manages a 60/40 win how does this play out with those who said No, how does Scotland come together and unite.

     

    Again this is similar for a No win, its very unlikely that the vote there will be less than 40 percent Yes unless theres some curveball thrown into proceedings.

     

    The thing that marks out Scotlands referendum from many others is that its current economy is far superior to that of any of those previous countries where we saw a very clear mandate, that essentially there wasn't that much to lose economically.

     

    This referendum has every chance of leaving a large swathe of Scottish voters deeply unhappy and this IMO is the biggest problem going forward regardless of the result.

     

    Nick only 18% of Scots would vote to join the union today according to a fairly recent poll (discussed here previously).

     

    EDIT. Also, remember in forced choice natID (SASS 2000-2013 averages):

    74% Scottish

    17% British

    9% Other

     

    Which of course agrees well with just 18% who would vote for 'Britain' to be a country today, i.e. those who feel emotionally British first and foremost in identity.

     

    I don't think most Scots would be really unhappy about the end of the union. While there is clearly a group strongly emotionally attached to it, there's little love for it in most of the population (hence the up to 7/10 support for Devo Max / independence lite).

     

    Much of No comes from fear. As there's no chance of more devolution, thus the union is a very hard sell in terms of positives, the no campaign have gone with promoting fear. It seemed to work ostensibly, but now is failing badly.

     

    Even pro-union papers are now starting to get annoyed and turn against Better Together. I hear Darling is now saying the media are biased to Yes!

     

    This was the morn's Herald for example. They're going to town on the farce that was the currency nuclear bomb to destroy boost Yes.

     

    Posted Image

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    Nick only 18% of Scots would vote to join the union today according to a fairly recent poll (discussed here previously).

     

    EDIT. Also, remember in forced choice natID (SASS 2000-2013 averages):

    74% Scottish

    17% British

    9% Other

     

    Which of course agrees well with just 18% who would vote for 'Britain' to be a country today, i.e. those who feel emotionally British first and foremost in identity.

     

    I don't think most Scots would be really unhappy about the end of the union. While there is clearly a group strongly emotionally attached to it, there's little love for it in most of the population (hence the up to 7/10 support for Devo Max / independence lite).

     

    Much of No comes from fear. As there's no chance of more devolution, thus the union is a very hard sell in terms of positives, the no campaign have gone with promoting fear. It seemed to work ostensibly, but now is failing badly.

     

    Even pro-union papers are now starting to get annoyed and turn against Better Together. I hear Darling is now saying the media are biased to Yes!

     

    This was the morn's Herald for example. They're going to town on the farce that was the currency nuclear bomb to destroy boost Yes.

     

    Posted Image

    The 18 percent willing to join the Union isn't a surprise, a country with a strong economy and good democracy would never give up its sovereignty into a Union, its hypothetical though. Equally I doubt the UK would be joining the EU under its current structure if it was asked that question today.

     

    The best case scenario if its a Yes is a decisive vote, the currency union No was a bluff and EU membership is quick with no drama, then those who voted No will probably accept the decision and there won't be too much acrimony.

     

    On the other side if its a Yes and the currency union No wasn't a bluff and the EU membership takes longer then it will get rather acrimonious, you see for all this talk by the Yes side that its just scaremongering that some negatives have been put forward theres no way any Yes supporter can hand on heart say they are definitely sure the Scottish economy won't suffer at least initially.

     

    This really goes to the heart of the matter re why we see huge wins for independence referendum when these are done in countries with poorish economies, where the population feel oppressed and lacking good human rights and equality.

     

    It's a no brainer then and very easy to vote Yes, what do you have to lose?

     

    IMO the currency union won't happen, its become toxic politically in the rUK, any threats by the SNP to walk away from the debt will just further harden that stance, let me give you a hypothetical question lets say England wanted to go it alone, they badmouthed your politicians, insisted Scotland shouldn't have a currency union referendum, threatened to walk away from a share of the debt unless they got that currency union, expected you to be LOLR , and cede some of your sovereignty back to them, how exactly would that play out with Scottish voters?

     

    I have no strong opinion of this currency union, it doesn't really effect me unless I move back to the UK, if I had to make a decision it would be made on whats best for the economy and the rUK not whether I'm hacked off that Scotland went its own way.

     

    Because of the way the Yes have dealt with this I suspect that it can now only get sold to the rUK whereby the Scottish government has to give up a lot, IMO too much to be acceptable to Scottish voters.

     

    I expect the three main parties south of the border to have the No currency union in their manifestos if theres a Yes vote because to do otherwise would likely lead to a wipe out at the GE, I've actually been quite shocked with just how much anti a currency union I'm finding when I chat to friends in the UK, these aren't people who have anytime at all for Cameron or Osborne.

     

    Theres no way any political party can do a deal on a currency union without the public behind them, this is of course a relief to the current Westminster crew because its a win win situation! Let the public say Yes and then you're just doing what they say, they say No and even if this effects the rUK economy again you're just honouring the wishes of the voters.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...