Scots favour independence from United Kingdom, Ashcroft poll shows

[RuamRudy]

12 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

That's just an opinion from the Scottish Reserve Bank. In that article they claim:

 

"An independent Scotland could expect to start with healthier state finances than the rest of the UK," says The Financial Times

 

It wasn't the FT who said this, it was one of their columnists Mure Dickie, a pro independence Scot. 

 

This just shows as I said earlier, people will use data to suit their own agenda. Scotland may well thrive as an independent nation - who knows. But I suspect the Scots who want independence don't have the economy high on the list of reasons for wanting it. The same way that most Brexiteers are not frightened off by the dire economic predictions from Remainers. I suspect it's more about not wanting to take orders from outside parties, and about being in control of their own their own destiny. 

 

 

Undoubtedly there are hard indy supporters who feel that independence is the main objective in itself, however there are a growing number of soft indy supporters or even soft unionists who are questioning why a supposedly first world country is seeing such a degradation in living standards for so very many.

 

The unionists have consistently tried to portray the Scottish government as incompetent and we often see TV posters parrot the same smears, but the reality is vastly different in just about every metric, and people in Scotland are definitely recognising this. While it is fair to say that mostly any government would look competent next to that shower in Westminster, I do think that the SG is making a decent fist of most of their remit and more and more people are waking up to that. 

[nausea]

If Brexit happens, Scottish independence will follow, sure as night follows day. Unless an independent UK happens to be wildly successful. I doubt it myself, but who knows. Freed from the regulatory mechanisms of Europe it's possible but highly unlikely. Big Boys rule OK - China, Russia, Europe, the USA.

[sandyf]

On 11/3/2019 at 8:49 PM, CG1 Blue said:

I'm not a fan of Cameron, but I don't think you can say he was secretly planning an EU referendum back in 2014. It was the rising threat coming from UKIP in the 2015 election that forced his hand. Cameron desperately wanted the UK to remain in the EU, and still does. 

The first reading of the referendum bill was in June 2013,do you think he was telling the Scots that it would not take place.

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

The first reading of the referendum bill was in June 2013,do you think he was telling the Scots that it would not take place.

So the first reading of the EU referendum bill was in June 2013, and the indi ref was in September 2014. The EU referendum bill was already out there when the indi ref took place. So I don't understand you earlier comment: 

 

"In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill."

 

 

 

[nauseus]

Terrible idea. Hope it never happens.

[RuamRudy]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Terrible idea. Hope it never happens.

Why, and why?

[RuamRudy]

Better Together being, of course, the official anti-independence face of the UK government and the various Unionist bodies in Scotland. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

Why, and why?

I think that in the long-term Scotland will be better off in the UK than in the EU, the same as the UK is going to be better off out of the EU. I believe that Ireland should leave too. Why? Because the EU basically serves Germany and to a small extent France and  Holland - it is trying to expand its frontiers while it has already started to decay from within - this will get worse. 

 

 

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think that in the long-term Scotland will be better off in the UK than in the EU, the same as the UK is going to be better off out of the EU. I believe that Ireland should leave too. Why? Because the EU basically serves Germany and to a small extent France and  Holland - it is trying to expand its frontiers while it has already started to decay from within - this will get worse. 

 

 

I agree ,  being run by these clowns in the EU would be a disaster.

You need serious leaders..

 

 

[RuamRudy]

45 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think that in the long-term Scotland will be better off in the UK than in the EU, the same as the UK is going to be better off out of the EU. I believe that Ireland should leave too. Why? Because the EU basically serves Germany and to a small extent France and  Holland - it is trying to expand its frontiers while it has already started to decay from within - this will get worse. 

 

 

But the UK doesn't serve Scotland - that is the primary complaint. There are more than a few who want independence from the UK but don't support rejoining the EU; for me, one step at a time. Firstly, independence - where we go after that is for another day.

[mercman24]

brilliant interview with the KRANKIE last week, by Andrew Marr, Scottish debt is running at £2400 per head, there deficit is the same in the same league as Greece and Italy, for the last 12 years, he asked her how she would , overcome this, as they are being propped up by Westminster, she could could only waffle, on and not give a plausable answer, typical politician. rubbish, he said i think you ought to be thanking the British taxpayer for propping you up all these years,, great stuff.

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

brilliant interview with the KRANKIE last week, by Andrew Marr, Scottish debt is running at £2400 per head, there deficit is the same in the same league as Greece and Italy, for the last 12 years, he asked her how she would , overcome this, as they are being propped up by Westminster, she could could only waffle, on and not give a plausable answer, typical politician. rubbish, he said i think you ought to be thanking the British taxpayer for propping you up all these years,, great stuff.

Besides the very obvious fact that, currently, Scottish taxpayers are also British taxpayers (because, as I am sure you are aware, England ≠ Britain), your point doesn't make a lot of sense, now, does it? Why, if Scotland is such a burden on UK finances, was it not jettisoned from the UK a long time ago? Just think what you could be doing with all that extra cash if you didn't have to spend it on those ungrateful sweaties?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

But the UK doesn't serve Scotland - that is the primary complaint. There are more than a few who want independence from the UK but don't support rejoining the EU; for me, one step at a time. Firstly, independence - where we go after that is for another day.

I agree that the "Union" needs to be "balanced".

[RuamRudy]

10 hours ago, nauseus said:

I agree that the "Union" needs to be "balanced".

Now we have a situation where the 3rd largest party in the UK, both in terms of members and MPs, is excluded from a national debate on the election; where a Lib Dem MP standing in a Scottish constituency is able to have nationwide TV coverage to get her views across, but her most likely contender's party is barred from participation. The argument goes that the SNP is not a nationwide party - but neither are the Tories, Labour or the Lid Dems.

 

To add even more insult to the mix, just suppose the absolute worst happens and that faux Tory, Swinson, actually gets into No 10. As she represents a Scottish constituency, she will be barred from voting on English only matters because of EVEL - that's right: if we ever have a Scottish PM, he or she will be able to vote only on matter which include Scotland. 

[evadgib]

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

I think that in the long-term Scotland will be better off in the UK than in the EU, the same as the UK is going to be better off out of the EU. I believe that Ireland should leave too. Why? Because the EU basically serves Germany and to a small extent France and  Holland - it is trying to expand its frontiers while it has already started to decay from within - this will get worse. 

That's pretty much #metoo 

[evadgib]

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Besides the very obvious fact that, currently, Scottish taxpayers are also British taxpayers (because, as I am sure you are aware, England ≠ Britain), your point doesn't make a lot of sense, now, does it? Why, if Scotland is such a burden on UK finances, was it not jettisoned from the UK a long time ago? Just think what you could be doing with all that extra cash if you didn't have to spend it on those ungrateful sweaties?

As previously stated on many occasions if the rest of UK had been asked Scotland would have been out at the first attempt.

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Now we have a situation where the 3rd largest party in the UK, both in terms of members and MPs, is excluded from a national debate on the election; where a Lib Dem MP standing in a Scottish constituency is able to have nationwide TV coverage to get her views across, but her most likely contender's party is barred from participation. The argument goes that the SNP is not a nationwide party - but neither are the Tories, Labour or the Lid Dems.

 

To add even more insult to the mix, just suppose the absolute worst happens and that faux Tory, Swinson, actually gets into No 10. As she represents a Scottish constituency, she will be barred from voting on English only matters because of EVEL - that's right: if we ever have a Scottish PM, he or she will be able to vote only on matter which include Scotland. 

in my view this Brexit process has shown very clearly that UK election system and the UK political governing framework

is in great need of serious overhaul and refurbishment, time to leave medieval times behind and enter at least the 1900s

 

[evadgib]

5 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Now we have a situation where the 3rd largest party in the UK, both in terms of members and MPs, is excluded from a national debate on the election; where a Lib Dem MP standing in a Scottish constituency is able to have nationwide TV coverage to get her views across, but her most likely contender's party is barred from participation. The argument goes that the SNP is not a nationwide party - but neither are the Tories, Labour or the Lid Dems.

 

To add even more insult to the mix, just suppose the absolute worst happens and that faux Tory, Swinson, actually gets into No 10. As she represents a Scottish constituency, she will be barred from voting on English only matters because of EVEL - that's right: if we ever have a Scottish PM, he or she will be able to vote only on matter which include Scotland. 

I'd like to see 'Frank Doberman' in a TV debate too RR. He's comedy gold when he goes on a rant! ????

 

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Now we have a situation where the 3rd largest party in the UK, both in terms of members and MPs, is excluded from a national debate on the election; where a Lib Dem MP standing in a Scottish constituency is able to have nationwide TV coverage to get her views across, but her most likely contender's party is barred from participation. The argument goes that the SNP is not a nationwide party - but neither are the Tories, Labour or the Lid Dems.

 

To add even more insult to the mix, just suppose the absolute worst happens and that faux Tory, Swinson, actually gets into No 10. As she represents a Scottish constituency, she will be barred from voting on English only matters because of EVEL - that's right: if we ever have a Scottish PM, he or she will be able to vote only on matter which include Scotland. 

OK RR, I am not a Liberal,  but just because the weak (To be polite) Clegg let Cameron walk all over him doesn't make the Liberals into a bunch of Tories. If we take that attitude then we end up like the LP hard left - so busy fighting their fantasy "Blairites" that they can't actually see the Tories, and these Tories are hard right, really dangerous people.

 

I think the media are way behind the game and still live in a two party world. This of course applies to the SNP, but also if we are fair the Lib/Dems performance in the EU elections was very impressive. PFTP means that they have NEVER had the MPs their votes warrant, same goes for the Greens of course. Swinson will never get to no 10 without support so this is hypothetical. The SNP won't deal with anybody if they don't agree to a referendum, and rightly so.

 

My greatest other hope for this election is to break up the 2 party system for ever, I'm sick of both of them. I hope the Libs do really well in England, particularly against the Tories, that could help.

[RuamRudy]

41 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

OK RR, I am not a Liberal,  but just because the weak (To be polite) Clegg let Cameron walk all over him doesn't make the Liberals into a bunch of Tories. If we take that attitude then we end up like the LP hard left - so busy fighting their fantasy "Blairites" that they can't actually see the Tories, and these Tories are hard right, really dangerous people.

 

I think the media are way behind the game and still live in a two party world. This of course applies to the SNP, but also if we are fair the Lib/Dems performance in the EU elections was very impressive. PFTP means that they have NEVER had the MPs their votes warrant, same goes for the Greens of course. Swinson will never get to no 10 without support so this is hypothetical. The SNP won't deal with anybody if they don't agree to a referendum, and rightly so.

 

My greatest other hope for this election is to break up the 2 party system for ever, I'm sick of both of them. I hope the Libs do really well in England, particularly against the Tories, that could help.

I think Jo Swinson's voting record (a passionate supporter of austerity and welfare cuts, for instance) that makes her fair game when it is said that she is more Tory than many Tories. That so many jaded Tory MPs find sanctuary with the Lib Dems tells us plenty about their policies, I think. 

[sandyf]

On 11/5/2019 at 6:22 PM, CG1 Blue said:

So the first reading of the EU referendum bill was in June 2013, and the indi ref was in September 2014. The EU referendum bill was already out there when the indi ref took place. So I don't understand you earlier comment: 

 

"In 2014 David Cameron pleaded with the Scots to remain in the UK telling them that they would have more say at the EU table, whilst secretly planning to stab them in the back with the referendum bill."

 

 

 

I fail to understand what you do not understand, he deliberately misled the Scots, implying the result of the referendum would be of little significance.

[Nigel Garvie]

On 11/6/2019 at 9:31 AM, RuamRudy said:

I think Jo Swinson's voting record (a passionate supporter of austerity and welfare cuts, for instance) that makes her fair game when it is said that she is more Tory than many Tories. That so many jaded Tory MPs find sanctuary with the Lib Dems tells us plenty about their policies, I think. 

Well we obviously agree on many topics, so I am relaxed about a modest difference of opinions here. Let me repeat, I never have supported the Liberals. They foolishly signed up for the coalition, and as a result voted with the Tories on many matters, inevitable. Letting the Tories run a minority government would have been wiser. The alternative Labour coalition was not realistic mathematically.
Maybe you could supply a link to show the passion in her support of austerity (Yes I know her voting record, Obama's comment on woke culture is good). 

 

A number of Labour MPs have also found sanctuary with the Lib Dems or outside the party anyway, which I guess tells us plenty about them also. Those who left the party were sick of perceived Anti Semitism and/or Brexit fence sitting I suspect.

 

Fortunately in Scotland my vote choice is easy, however if I was in a Labour/Lib marginal and the LP candidate was a leaver, I would vote Liberal. The younger voters, I read, are much more likely than old codgers like me to vote tactically. Interesting times ahead.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Well we obviously agree on many topics, so I am relaxed about a modest difference of opinions here. Let me repeat, I never have supported the Liberals. They foolishly signed up for the coalition, and as a result voted with the Tories on many matters, inevitable. Letting the Tories run a minority government would have been wiser. The alternative Labour coalition was not realistic mathematically.
Maybe you could supply a link to show the passion in her support of austerity (Yes I know her voting record, Obama's comment on woke culture is good). 

 

A number of Labour MPs have also found sanctuary with the Lib Dems or outside the party anyway, which I guess tells us plenty about them also. Those who left the party were sick of perceived Anti Semitism and/or Brexit fence sitting I suspect.

 

Fortunately in Scotland my vote choice is easy, however if I was in a Labour/Lib marginal and the LP candidate was a leaver, I would vote Liberal. The younger voters, I read, are much more likely than old codgers like me to vote tactically. Interesting times ahead.

I am not sure that I would agree that Obama's 'woke' comments were particularly relevant in this instance. My take on his comments is that he was saying that all people have flaws, and that we should accept that even those whom we place on pedestals are mortal. But to vote consistently in a particular manner doesn't represent a forgivable transgression or error of judgement, but reflects a fundamental belief in the objective of the votes. 

 

As has been pointed out by others over the past few days on these boards, our FPTP system really does leave us in a bind in terms of what is mainly a 2 horse race. Whether this is the driving force between the LD's puritanical facade slipping in the past couple of days (misrepresenting data on election flyers, implying praise of Swinson from media sources when she actually said those things herself and was only quoted on the outlets supposedly praising her) I have no idea, but to be honest, the LD don't look much different than the rest of them - other than their Brexit stance.

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Well we obviously agree on many topics, so I am relaxed about a modest difference of opinions here. Let me repeat, I never have supported the Liberals. They foolishly signed up for the coalition, and as a result voted with the Tories on many matters, inevitable. Letting the Tories run a minority government would have been wiser. The alternative Labour coalition was not realistic mathematically.
Maybe you could supply a link to show the passion in her support of austerity (Yes I know her voting record, Obama's comment on woke culture is good). 

 

A number of Labour MPs have also found sanctuary with the Lib Dems or outside the party anyway, which I guess tells us plenty about them also. Those who left the party were sick of perceived Anti Semitism and/or Brexit fence sitting I suspect.

 

Fortunately in Scotland my vote choice is easy, however if I was in a Labour/Lib marginal and the LP candidate was a leaver, I would vote Liberal. The younger voters, I read, are much more likely than old codgers like me to vote tactically. Interesting times ahead.

 

fptp  does not lend itself to tactical voting, on the contrary

 

in a "modern" election system tactical voting will always be risky business,

with fptp - very high risk of vote wasting and increased possibility of end result worse than necessary

 

 

[beautifulthailand99]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:41 AM, evadgib said:

I'd like to see 'Frank Doberman' in a TV debate too RR. He's comedy gold when he goes on a rant! ????

 

Blimey eva this is niche within a niche is Nigel is a candle seller then this bloke is flogging woad with a 500 quid deposit to chuck down the drain ????????

[beautifulthailand99]

If I was Scottish I would want a 2 stage referendum. One on whether to leave the Union or not and if the answer is yes what would the deal be with London on the separation - otherwise like Brexit I would be buying a pig in a poke.

[Nigel Garvie]

6 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am not sure that I would agree that Obama's 'woke' comments were particularly relevant in this instance. My take on his comments is that he was saying that all people have flaws, and that we should accept that even those whom we place on pedestals are mortal. But to vote consistently in a particular manner doesn't represent a forgivable transgression or error of judgement, but reflects a fundamental belief in the objective of the votes. 

 

As has been pointed out by others over the past few days on these boards, our FPTP system really does leave us in a bind in terms of what is mainly a 2 horse race. Whether this is the driving force between the LD's puritanical facade slipping in the past couple of days (misrepresenting data on election flyers, implying praise of Swinson from media sources when she actually said those things herself and was only quoted on the outlets supposedly praising her) I have no idea, but to be honest, the LD don't look much different than the rest of them - other than their Brexit stance.

"the LD don't look much different than the rest of them" ...............yes indeed, and Swinton is getting out of hand, and showing errors of judgement. The Libs have had better leaders by far, Grimond, Ashdown, and Cable for a start. 

........I thought I'd better agree with you or you might send the Treens round !!

[Nigel Garvie]

4 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

fptp  does not lend itself to tactical voting, on the contrary

 

in a "modern" election system tactical voting will always be risky business,

with fptp - very high risk of vote wasting and increased possibility of end result worse than necessary

 

 

fptp does make tactical voting challenging yes, however in this election huge effort appears to be being made to encourage it, and inform how best to do it. 

 

PR (Logically, to me anyway) should largely remove the need for tactical voting. The wisdom IMHO of the Scottish system, where a candidate link to the constituencies is maintained, makes it so that you would need the second sight, to work out how the top up votes were going to fall, thus how to make tactical voting effective.

[melvinmelvin]

23 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

fptp does make tactical voting challenging yes, however in this election huge effort appears to be being made to encourage it, and inform how best to do it. 

 

PR (Logically, to me anyway) should largely remove the need for tactical voting. The wisdom IMHO of the Scottish system, where a candidate link to the constituencies is maintained, makes it so that you would need the second sight, to work out how the top up votes were going to fall, thus how to make tactical voting effective.

 

right, maybe we understand the term tactical a bit differently, attach different juice to it perhaps,

not sure - but I think I understand a tactical vote as a vote cast that is not in line with a voter's normal preference

 

strange phrase to me, this "remove the need for tactical"

in my view tactical voting is something you resort to, on an occasion - not routinely, if you want to achieve a special

result that you in all likelihood would not achieve without tactics

 

talking about pr and UK and the need for or lack of need for tactical voting looks somewhat strange to me without

having a reasoanable sketch of UK with a different voting arrangement

 

how many constituencies and where

how many MPs in Westminster

the spread of the MPs across constituencies

what kind of counting/calculation system will be used

what will be the average vote windfall/MP etc etc

 

complicated stuff really - but a grip on it is needed before assessing the relevance of tactical voting

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.