Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[Richard W]

You need to google the connections between Ireland & Scotland..As I said before -- you're obviously not from around here

I did try to find out what opinions were being expressed elsewhere, but all I found was NI Unionists aghast at the idea of NI and Scotland separating and some Republican laughter. I recall the Blether mentioning some Catholics who'd got away from NI and moved to Scotland, but then he wouldn't have mentioned them if they'd moved to England.

It is over thirty years since I lived in Scotland.

[jpinx]

Decent reporting should consider or at least allow both sides of an argument to be aired. If I was in the business of cherry picking why would I include the whole link which includes the section from the Scottish Government spokesperson?

Posting a link is supposedly to allow other posters to read it and consider its validity/accuracy/relevance.

It would be refreshing if you actually made a contribution to the debate. If you think this report is inaccurate tell us why and state your case as to why Scotland's economic future as a possibly independent nation is secure.

The relevance of the 2010 General Election results is simple. If Scotland is out of the equation, who benefits and who loses out? Furthermore how does this impact the whole debate re Scottish independence and what might the long term implications be for the various parties involved? What therefore might be the agenda for these different parties?

Any thoughts?

The vast majority of "predictions" on the future of economics are proven to be inaccurate as events unfold. Independence for Scotland is an act of faith and determination - it is not only about economics. Scotland wants to determine it's own future, that has been shown in a democratic vote for a scottish parliament who support an independence vote. Lobbying the population is - frankly - the sign of a lack of confidence. Does one need to persuade other people to support your view? Do you not have confidence in the democratic process? UK people are generally reasonably well educated and certainly articulate so it is not unreasonable to allow them to decide for themselves, or ask pertinent questions about specifics they want to know more about, from whomsoever they choose to ask....

Edited December 20, 2012 by jpinx

[phuketjock]

From your very own source yet again folium

" A Scottish government spokesman said: "With 24 billion barrels of oil still to be recovered with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion, the North Sea oil and gas sector has a bright future, underlined just this week with Dana Petroleum's announcement of a £1bn development, demonstrating the continuing growth of Scotland's energy sector.

"Professor Kemp's latest analysis shows the Treasury will have taken £10 billion from Scotland's North Sea in 2011-12 at a time when Scotland is facing the prospect of up to five more years of UK austerity

"The CPPR acknowledge the OBR's forecasts, which are pessimistic relative to many others, should not be seen as the definitive picture, with the UK government's own energy department expecting oil prices of $120 in 2017.

"An independent Scotland will be able to face the difficult financial choices ahead from a stronger position than in the UK and use the full range of economic levers to support growth, boost revenues and deliver public services." "

You really should read your whole source before you jump in!!!!

Try reading the whole piece not just the bits that fit your argument.

PS Scottish government spokesman are unlikely to be unbiased.

I'm sorry folly I can pick the bits I like just as you can pick the bits you like and

you were the one who chose to post the article so that makes all of it fair game

It's a matter of opinion what is biased and what is not so if you don't wish me to

use it don't give me the ammo simple as that sunshine.

Decent reporting should consider or at least allow both sides of an argument to be aired. If I was in the business of cherry picking why would I include the whole link which includes the section from the Scottish Government spokesperson?

Posting a link is supposedly to allow other posters to read it and consider its validity/accuracy/relevance.

It would be refreshing if you actually made a contribution to the debate. If you think this report is inaccurate tell us why and state your case as to why Scotland's economic future as a possibly independent nation is secure.

The relevance of the 2010 General Election results is simple. If Scotland is out of the equation, who benefits and who loses out? Furthermore how does this impact the whole debate re Scottish independence and what might the long term implications be for the various parties involved? What therefore might be the agenda for these different parties?

Any thoughts?

Folium.

You are boring me now, I don't have to explain the logic behind my views to you or anyone

else, it is obvious by my post that I disagree with the accuracy of your report, no??

This thread has various and numerous posts on the finacial viability of an independant Scotland

go find them if you are that desparate, but don't even think about asking me to tell you again.

You and people with a similar view really need to try and come up with something new becauase

going over and over the same things again and again does not as you put it " contribute to the debate "

in any meaningful way. So can the cronies please give us something to seriously think about???

" The relevance of the 2010 General Election results is simple " there is none.

Edited December 20, 2012 by phuketjock

[folium]

Decent reporting should consider or at least allow both sides of an argument to be aired. If I was in the business of cherry picking why would I include the whole link which includes the section from the Scottish Government spokesperson?

Posting a link is supposedly to allow other posters to read it and consider its validity/accuracy/relevance.

It would be refreshing if you actually made a contribution to the debate. If you think this report is inaccurate tell us why and state your case as to why Scotland's economic future as a possibly independent nation is secure.

The relevance of the 2010 General Election results is simple. If Scotland is out of the equation, who benefits and who loses out? Furthermore how does this impact the whole debate re Scottish independence and what might the long term implications be for the various parties involved? What therefore might be the agenda for these different parties?

Any thoughts?

The vast majority of "predictions" on the future of economics are proven to be inaccurate as events unfold. Independence for Scotland is an act of faith and determination - it is not only about economics. Scotland wants to determine it's own future, that has been shown in a democratic vote for a scottish parliament who support an independence vote. Lobbying the population is - frankly - the sign of a lack of confidence. Does one need to persuade other people to support your view? Do you not have confidence in the democratic process? UK people are generally reasonably well educated and certainly articulate so it is not unreasonable to allow them to decide for themselves, or ask pertinent questions about specifics they want to know more about, from whomsoever they choose to ask....

Independence may well be an act of faith and determination but it still needs to be based on secure economic foundations to make sure that secession is a practical/feasible option.

Does "Scotland want to determine it's own future"? The 2011 Scottish election did not see the SNP campaign on a single issue and it was also not held in a political vacuum, ie there was plenty of spillover from the Tory/Lib Dem coalition issues, and Labour, and Gray, in particular ran a spectacularly poor, complacent and unfocused campaign.

In the 2011 election the SNP won a 45.4% share of the vote on a relatively low 50% turnout (2010 General Election 64% turnout). Therefore if the SNP were solely standing on a platform of Scottish independence, 22.7% of Scotland's voters agreed with this. Not exactly a democratically expressed desire for change...

How many people today regret having voted in favour of the UK joining the EEC, and their usual refrain is that they wish they had been more aware of exactly what they were getting into. With a 2 year run in to this referendum they should be plenty of time to discuss all the various issues and debate the pros and cons. Ultimately the voters will have their say and it is the responsibility of both sides to present their case, and hopefully the voters will take on board these points and make what they perceive to be the right choice.

Personally I don't believe independence is the right route for either Scotland or the UK as a whole, but if Blether and co can persuade me and a majority of Scottish voters to think their way, independence it will be and we will have to make it work somehow. Debate is all about presenting different sides to an argument. Rarely does one side have a monopoly of perfect arguments and cast iron reasons. 2 years is a very long time in politics and the debate, quite rightly, should and will rage right up to voting day.

[phuketjock]

Decent reporting should consider or at least allow both sides of an argument to be aired. If I was in the business of cherry picking why would I include the whole link which includes the section from the Scottish Government spokesperson?

Posting a link is supposedly to allow other posters to read it and consider its validity/accuracy/relevance.

It would be refreshing if you actually made a contribution to the debate. If you think this report is inaccurate tell us why and state your case as to why Scotland's economic future as a possibly independent nation is secure.

The relevance of the 2010 General Election results is simple. If Scotland is out of the equation, who benefits and who loses out? Furthermore how does this impact the whole debate re Scottish independence and what might the long term implications be for the various parties involved? What therefore might be the agenda for these different parties?

Any thoughts?

The vast majority of "predictions" on the future of economics are proven to be inaccurate as events unfold. Independence for Scotland is an act of faith and determination - it is not only about economics. Scotland wants to determine it's own future, that has been shown in a democratic vote for a scottish parliament who support an independence vote. Lobbying the population is - frankly - the sign of a lack of confidence. Does one need to persuade other people to support your view? Do you not have confidence in the democratic process? UK people are generally reasonably well educated and certainly articulate so it is not unreasonable to allow them to decide for themselves, or ask pertinent questions about specifics they want to know more about, from whomsoever they choose to ask....

Independence may well be an act of faith and determination but it still needs to be based on secure economic foundations to make sure that secession is a practical/feasible option.

Does "Scotland want to determine it's own future"? The 2011 Scottish election did not see the SNP campaign on a single issue and it was also not held in a political vacuum, ie there was plenty of spillover from the Tory/Lib Dem coalition issues, and Labour, and Gray, in particular ran a spectacularly poor, complacent and unfocused campaign.

In the 2011 election the SNP won a 45.4% share of the vote on a relatively low 50% turnout (2010 General Election 64% turnout). Therefore if the SNP were solely standing on a platform of Scottish independence, 22.7% of Scotland's voters agreed with this. Not exactly a democratically expressed desire for change...

How many people today regret having voted in favour of the UK joining the EEC, and their usual refrain is that they wish they had been more aware of exactly what they were getting into. With a 2 year run in to this referendum they should be plenty of time to discuss all the various issues and debate the pros and cons. Ultimately the voters will have their say and it is the responsibility of both sides to present their case, and hopefully the voters will take on board these points and make what they perceive to be the right choice.

Personally I don't believe independence is the right route for either Scotland or the UK as a whole, but if Blether and co can persuade me and a majority of Scottish voters to think their way, independence it will be and we will have to make it work somehow. Debate is all about presenting different sides to an argument. Rarely does one side have a monopoly of perfect arguments and cast iron reasons. 2 years is a very long time in politics and the debate, quite rightly, should and will rage right up to voting day.

Half decent post I must say folly you have stepped up a notch, well done.

Edited December 20, 2012 by phuketjock

[jpinx]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

[endure]

A post discussing moderation has been removed.

21) Not to discuss moderation publicly in the open forum; this includes individual actions, and specific or general policies and issues. You may send a PM to a moderator to discuss individual actions or email support (at) thaivisa.com to discuss moderation policy. Members should not block contact with moderators or administrators. Doing so will result in suspension.

[folium]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

What a bizarre post...

Turnout is a direct result of how engaged and motivated the public are. If the event appears to be a foregone conclusion turnout does dip, but it is up to the parties in any situation concerned to mobilise the vote by firing them re highlighting their pros and the opponents cons, hence Obama's twin victories. The Scottish referendum will be no different and the numbers lacking on the secessionist side are highlighted by the bizarre idea of enlisting under-18s (overlooking the simple fact that under-25s are the worst voting group).

If as you say most people resent the Brussels factor, why should Scots vote to exit the UK when the likelihood is that the UK may well (rightly or wrongly) exit the EU in the next few years? Salmond is all gung ho to join the EU, but then he has little choice as the Swiss EFTA option is no longer available and Norway gets the worst of all worlds, paying the bills like a member but having no say. So if you are a Scottish voter and you don't like the Brussels factor why would you vote for independence as there is little to no choice of life without the EU or Euro? Classic case of leaping from frying pan to fire...

Two years is plenty of time for campaigning and Salmond will need all his guile and skills to avoid a humiliating defeat, but then again the Blether one (PBUH) has already decreed that the election is unwinnable for the secessionists so I am not sure what all the discussion is about if Dr Evil has already made his judgement....!

[endure]

One more time:

"4) Not to flame fellow members.Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger."

One of the mods from the US has expressed surprise that this thread is as civilised as it is so let's keep it that way...

[ScotsExpat]

The long term economic viability of an independent Scotland was raised today in a report from the Glasgow-based Centre for Public Policy for the Regions. Good news short term contrasts with a more murky future, an analysis that meshes with various other non-Scottish Government forecasts.

Scottish independence: nice idea, shame about the economics?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-20777300

From your very own source yet again folium

" A Scottish government spokesman said: "With 24 billion barrels of oil still to be recovered with a wholesale value of £1.5 trillion, the North Sea oil and gas sector has a bright future, underlined just this week with Dana Petroleum's announcement of a £1bn development, demonstrating the continuing growth of Scotland's energy sector.

"Professor Kemp's latest analysis shows the Treasury will have taken £10 billion from Scotland's North Sea in 2011-12 at a time when Scotland is facing the prospect of up to five more years of UK austerity

"The CPPR acknowledge the OBR's forecasts, which are pessimistic relative to many others, should not be seen as the definitive picture, with the UK government's own energy department expecting oil prices of $120 in 2017.

"An independent Scotland will be able to face the difficult financial choices ahead from a stronger position than in the UK and use the full range of economic levers to support growth, boost revenues and deliver public services." "

You really should read your whole source before you jump in!!!!

Try reading the whole piece not just the bits that fit your argument.

PS Scottish government spokesman are unlikely to be unbiased.

I'm sorry folly I can pick the bits I like just as you can pick the bits you like and

you were the one who chose to post the article so that makes all of it fair game

It's a matter of opinion what is biased and what is not so if you don't wish me to

use it don't give me the ammo simple as that sunshine.

Hmmm...

The author of the report from the CPPR is a certain Mr John McLaren. http://www.cppr.ac.uk/centres/cppr/whoweare/

"John worked as a researcher for the Labour Party for a year leading up to the first election (1999) of the new Scottish Parliament, being subsequently appointed as a Special Adviser by Donald Dewar, and then by Henry McLeish, for the period up to 2001. John was a member of the Labour Party from 2000 to 2005. In 2006 John was hired by the Labour Party on a consultancy basis to undertake work leading up to the 2007 election."

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics....

[jpinx]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

What a bizarre post...

Turnout is a direct result of how engaged and motivated the public are. If the event appears to be a foregone conclusion turnout does dip, but it is up to the parties in any situation concerned to mobilise the vote by firing them re highlighting their pros and the opponents cons, hence Obama's twin victories. The Scottish referendum will be no different and the numbers lacking on the secessionist side are highlighted by the bizarre idea of enlisting under-18s (overlooking the simple fact that under-25s are the worst voting group).

If as you say most people resent the Brussels factor, why should Scots vote to exit the UK when the likelihood is that the UK may well (rightly or wrongly) exit the EU in the next few years? Salmond is all gung ho to join the EU, but then he has little choice as the Swiss EFTA option is no longer available and Norway gets the worst of all worlds, paying the bills like a member but having no say. So if you are a Scottish voter and you don't like the Brussels factor why would you vote for independence as there is little to no choice of life without the EU or Euro? Classic case of leaping from frying pan to fire...

Two years is plenty of time for campaigning and Salmond will need all his guile and skills to avoid a humiliating defeat, but then again the Blether one (PBUH) has already decreed that the election is unwinnable for the secessionists so I am not sure what all the discussion is about if Dr Evil has already made his judgement....!

I do bizarre quite well but it does not detract from my opinions

I suggest that turnout depends on many more things than motivation. To a person with a high level of political interest it is unthinkable not to vote, but there is a huge number of people who really don't care much and will only vote if it's not raining and the queue is not too long, etc. Firing them up is what campaigning is all about, but campaigning tends to use tricks and half-truths, where-as in here we are not campaigning, we are debating, so there's no need to hide from facts.

It's not unreasonable to guess that Obama won twice because he is patently the better man. But USA politics is a different animal in many ways, so comparisons are complicated and rarely present any clarity.

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The assumption that UK will get out of the EU is founded on minority populist rhetoric and wishful thinking. The reality is that UK is now committed to the EU as a trading group and benefits from the world-wide recognition of the standards. Scots are already in the EU and the brussels factor is part of daily life, so staying in will produce "no change" in that regard and is a non-topic in campaigning.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

2 years is just the final run-up to the vote. What many people fail to recognise is that independence was already high on the agenda during the last Scottish parliament vote, and pro-independence won that day in no uncertain fashion. What is actually happening now is a process in which everyone is being given a huge amount of time to decide what they really want. Debates such as this one will run in countless places across Scotland and absolutely no-one can say that they didn't have time to think it through.

Many countries, including some of the supposedly greatest, would do well to look at the process currently going on in Scotland. It is a master lesson in democracy.

[smokie36]

Good post jpinx and in a democratic vote such as we shall have many will already have decided which way to vote.

Many more younger voters will not, and I believe this is a key target group for both sides.

I like to think that is why I was being handed leaflets to vote yes in Edinburgh the other weekend.

[folium]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

What a bizarre post...

Turnout is a direct result of how engaged and motivated the public are. If the event appears to be a foregone conclusion turnout does dip, but it is up to the parties in any situation concerned to mobilise the vote by firing them re highlighting their pros and the opponents cons, hence Obama's twin victories. The Scottish referendum will be no different and the numbers lacking on the secessionist side are highlighted by the bizarre idea of enlisting under-18s (overlooking the simple fact that under-25s are the worst voting group).

If as you say most people resent the Brussels factor, why should Scots vote to exit the UK when the likelihood is that the UK may well (rightly or wrongly) exit the EU in the next few years? Salmond is all gung ho to join the EU, but then he has little choice as the Swiss EFTA option is no longer available and Norway gets the worst of all worlds, paying the bills like a member but having no say. So if you are a Scottish voter and you don't like the Brussels factor why would you vote for independence as there is little to no choice of life without the EU or Euro? Classic case of leaping from frying pan to fire...

Two years is plenty of time for campaigning and Salmond will need all his guile and skills to avoid a humiliating defeat, but then again the Blether one (PBUH) has already decreed that the election is unwinnable for the secessionists so I am not sure what all the discussion is about if Dr Evil has already made his judgement....!

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The under 25s are increasingly disengaged see link below for UK General Elections 1964-2010;

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/voter-turnout-by-age-group.html

With the demographics making the UK population an ageing one (until recently) the old fart vote vote is far more important than the yuff vote.

[smokie36]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

What a bizarre post...

Turnout is a direct result of how engaged and motivated the public are. If the event appears to be a foregone conclusion turnout does dip, but it is up to the parties in any situation concerned to mobilise the vote by firing them re highlighting their pros and the opponents cons, hence Obama's twin victories. The Scottish referendum will be no different and the numbers lacking on the secessionist side are highlighted by the bizarre idea of enlisting under-18s (overlooking the simple fact that under-25s are the worst voting group).

If as you say most people resent the Brussels factor, why should Scots vote to exit the UK when the likelihood is that the UK may well (rightly or wrongly) exit the EU in the next few years? Salmond is all gung ho to join the EU, but then he has little choice as the Swiss EFTA option is no longer available and Norway gets the worst of all worlds, paying the bills like a member but having no say. So if you are a Scottish voter and you don't like the Brussels factor why would you vote for independence as there is little to no choice of life without the EU or Euro? Classic case of leaping from frying pan to fire...

Two years is plenty of time for campaigning and Salmond will need all his guile and skills to avoid a humiliating defeat, but then again the Blether one (PBUH) has already decreed that the election is unwinnable for the secessionists so I am not sure what all the discussion is about if Dr Evil has already made his judgement....!

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The under 25s are increasingly disengaged see link below for UK General Elections 1964-2010;

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/voter-turnout-by-age-group.html

With the demographics making the UK population an ageing one (until recently) the old fart vote vote is far more important than the yuff vote.

This is not a UK general election however and there is no precedence for a fair chance to vote on independence for Scotland.

I hope its a bright and warm sunny day.

[folium]

This is not a UK general election however and there is no precedence for a fair chance to vote on independence for Scotland.

I hope its a bright and warm sunny day.

What date is the referendum due to be held...please don't tell me it's 24th June!

[smokie36]

This is not a UK general election however and there is no precedence for a fair chance to vote on independence for Scotland.

I hope its a bright and warm sunny day.

What date is the referendum due to be held...please don't tell me it's 24th June!

Don't think that's been decided yet but early May is more likely.

We don't want a vote when half the electorate are on the Costa del Sol now do we?

[folium]

Hmmm...

The author of the report from the CPPR is a certain Mr John McLaren. http://www.cppr.ac.u.../cppr/whoweare/

"John worked as a researcher for the Labour Party for a year leading up to the first election (1999) of the new Scottish Parliament, being subsequently appointed as a Special Adviser by Donald Dewar, and then by Henry McLeish, for the period up to 2001. John was a member of the Labour Party from 2000 to 2005. In 2006 John was hired by the Labour Party on a consultancy basis to undertake work leading up to the 2007 election."

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics....

Especially when you leave out the guy's full bio re his political status.

"Political Status

John was a civil servant at both H.M. Treasury (1985-1988) and at the Scottish Office (1989-1998). During this period he had no political affiliations.

John worked as a researcher for the Labour Party for a year leading up to the first election (1999) of the new Scottish Parliament, being subsequently appointed as a Special Adviser by Donald Dewar, and then by Henry McLeish, for the period up to 2001. John was a member of the Labour Party from 2000 to 2005. In 2006 John was hired by the Labour Party on a consultancy basis to undertake work leading up to the 2007 election.

Since 2002 John has worked as an independent economic consultant and member of CPPR. Since 2005 he has had no political affiliations."

[jpinx]

This is not a UK general election however and there is no precedence for a fair chance to vote on independence for Scotland.

I hope its a bright and warm sunny day.

What date is the referendum due to be held...please don't tell me it's 24th June!

4th July

[jpinx]

Turnouts and percentages of turnouts are well-known to be a bad indicator of anything - especially public opinion. Democracy is a funny thing -- those that don't take part are voting to accept whatever comes from the majority of people who *do* take part.

I think it is not unreasonable to say that most of the common european people heartily resent the "brussels factor" in tEU membership. UK people are most certainly not alone in the resentment of many aspects of EU membership, but the fact is that UK *is* in the EU now, so it's best to make itwork from the inside and not stand outside and complain. So it is with independence for Scotland. Those people with an interest will vote the rest will accept the outcome. You can't complain if you don't vote, and you can't complain if you lose, because that's democracy in action The people who are interested enough to listen to any pre-vote propoganda have probably decided a long time ago, so it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Those undecided voters who will bother to vote are a tiny proportion and probably will not affect the result.

---- I'll get my flak-jacket now

What a bizarre post...

Turnout is a direct result of how engaged and motivated the public are. If the event appears to be a foregone conclusion turnout does dip, but it is up to the parties in any situation concerned to mobilise the vote by firing them re highlighting their pros and the opponents cons, hence Obama's twin victories. The Scottish referendum will be no different and the numbers lacking on the secessionist side are highlighted by the bizarre idea of enlisting under-18s (overlooking the simple fact that under-25s are the worst voting group).

If as you say most people resent the Brussels factor, why should Scots vote to exit the UK when the likelihood is that the UK may well (rightly or wrongly) exit the EU in the next few years? Salmond is all gung ho to join the EU, but then he has little choice as the Swiss EFTA option is no longer available and Norway gets the worst of all worlds, paying the bills like a member but having no say. So if you are a Scottish voter and you don't like the Brussels factor why would you vote for independence as there is little to no choice of life without the EU or Euro? Classic case of leaping from frying pan to fire...

Two years is plenty of time for campaigning and Salmond will need all his guile and skills to avoid a humiliating defeat, but then again the Blether one (PBUH) has already decreed that the election is unwinnable for the secessionists so I am not sure what all the discussion is about if Dr Evil has already made his judgement....!

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The under 25s are increasingly disengaged see link below for UK General Elections 1964-2010;

http://markwadsworth...-age-group.html

With the demographics making the UK population an ageing one (until recently) the old fart vote vote is far more important than the yuff vote.

I'd not disagree with that report about a UK electorate, but this is a "special case", not a repeating general election where apathy can exceed politics. From my personal experience I'd say that youngsters in Scotland are increasingly engaged because they see it as their special chance to actually do something - to change something - and their comments include a fair amount of appreciation for the chance to vote on such a momentous issue that will directly affect them for the rest of their lives.

The old farts will probably be more conservative on average.

It's a fascinating time and I am very happy to see people enjoying the process.

[jpinx]

This is not a UK general election however and there is no precedence for a fair chance to vote on independence for Scotland.

I hope its a bright and warm sunny day.

What date is the referendum due to be held...please don't tell me it's 24th June!

Don't think that's been decided yet but early May is more likely.

We don't want a vote when half the electorate are on the Costa del Sol now do we?

I'd guess there will be provision for postal voting or some other mechanism for people away on voting day.

[jpinx]

Just to be a D A --- if Wales sees a successful outcome to Scottish Independence it is not inconceivable that they might follow suit. Then it'll be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Conjure with that thought ..........

[StreetCowboy]

Just to be a D A --- if Wales sees a successful outcome to Scottish Independence it is not inconceivable that they might follow suit. Then it'll be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Conjure with that thought ..........

We could be the next Balkans...

[jpinx]

Just to be a D A --- if Wales sees a successful outcome to Scottish Independence it is not inconceivable that they might follow suit. Then it'll be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Conjure with that thought ..........

We could be the next Balkans...

Hopefully without the war, massacres, etc.........

[StreetCowboy]

Just to be a D A --- if Wales sees a successful outcome to Scottish Independence it is not inconceivable that they might follow suit. Then it'll be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Conjure with that thought ..........

We could be the next Balkans...

Hopefully without the war, massacres, etc.........

I worry when people make critical decisions that will affect my children and grandchildren based on hope, faith and determination.

SC

[jpinx]

I worry when people make critical decisions that will affect my children and grandchildren based on hope, faith and determination.

SC

Most political decisions are emotive. Do you think the founding fathers of USA had any more foresight than that based on hope, faith and determination ?

[StreetCowboy]

I worry when people make critical decisions that will affect my children and grandchildren based on hope, faith and determination.

SC

Most political decisions are emotive. Do you think the founding fathers of USA had any more foresight than that based on hope, faith and determination ?

I would expect that, like the Romans, they would have had a detailed Gantt chart, what-if analysis, risk assessment, market survey, budget, business plan, financial forecasts and the services of a good augur to read the animal innards.

So far, the case for independence seems to be:

1) We will be better off because keeping all the oil revenue for ourselves will more than offset any weaknesses in our economy

2) Scottish politicians will perform better in Holyrood than they do in Westminster

It's a pretty convincing case, but I am sure a counter-case could also be prepared

SC

[rgs2001uk]

I do bizarre quite well but it does not detract from my opinions

I suggest that turnout depends on many more things than motivation. To a person with a high level of political interest it is unthinkable not to vote, but there is a huge number of people who really don't care much and will only vote if it's not raining and the queue is not too long, etc. Firing them up is what campaigning is all about, but campaigning tends to use tricks and half-truths, where-as in here we are not campaigning, we are debating, so there's no need to hide from facts.

It's not unreasonable to guess that Obama won twice because he is patently the better man. But USA politics is a different animal in many ways, so comparisons are complicated and rarely present any clarity.

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The assumption that UK will get out of the EU is founded on minority populist rhetoric and wishful thinking. The reality is that UK is now committed to the EU as a trading group and benefits from the world-wide recognition of the standards. Scots are already in the EU and the brussels factor is part of daily life, so staying in will produce "no change" in that regard and is a non-topic in campaigning.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

2 years is just the final run-up to the vote. What many people fail to recognise is that independence was already high on the agenda during the last Scottish parliament vote, and pro-independence won that day in no uncertain fashion. What is actually happening now is a process in which everyone is being given a huge amount of time to decide what they really want. Debates such as this one will run in countless places across Scotland and absolutely no-one can say that they didn't have time to think it through.

Many countries, including some of the supposedly greatest, would do well to look at the process currently going on in Scotland. It is a master lesson in democracy.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

As of yet I am unaware what fiscal policy an indepandant Scotland will adopt, Pound or Euro?

Will those of us who hold investments with the likes of Alliance and Baillie Gifford be offered the choice of keeping our investments in Pound Sterling or will they automatically be transferred over to Euros?

I wonder what, what if scenarios are taking place right now at the above mentioned institutions, financial turmoil as the pension funds and corporate investors and the small guy in the street cash in and move elsewhere to a Euro free investment choice.

[jpinx]

I do bizarre quite well but it does not detract from my opinions

I suggest that turnout depends on many more things than motivation. To a person with a high level of political interest it is unthinkable not to vote, but there is a huge number of people who really don't care much and will only vote if it's not raining and the queue is not too long, etc. Firing them up is what campaigning is all about, but campaigning tends to use tricks and half-truths, where-as in here we are not campaigning, we are debating, so there's no need to hide from facts.

It's not unreasonable to guess that Obama won twice because he is patently the better man. But USA politics is a different animal in many ways, so comparisons are complicated and rarely present any clarity.

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The assumption that UK will get out of the EU is founded on minority populist rhetoric and wishful thinking. The reality is that UK is now committed to the EU as a trading group and benefits from the world-wide recognition of the standards. Scots are already in the EU and the brussels factor is part of daily life, so staying in will produce "no change" in that regard and is a non-topic in campaigning.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

2 years is just the final run-up to the vote. What many people fail to recognise is that independence was already high on the agenda during the last Scottish parliament vote, and pro-independence won that day in no uncertain fashion. What is actually happening now is a process in which everyone is being given a huge amount of time to decide what they really want. Debates such as this one will run in countless places across Scotland and absolutely no-one can say that they didn't have time to think it through.

Many countries, including some of the supposedly greatest, would do well to look at the process currently going on in Scotland. It is a master lesson in democracy.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

As of yet I am unaware what fiscal policy an indepandant Scotland will adopt, Pound or Euro?

Will those of us who hold investments with the likes of Alliance and Baillie Gifford be offered the choice of keeping our investments in Pound Sterling or will they automatically be transferred over to Euros?

I wonder what, what if scenarios are taking place right now at the above mentioned institutions, financial turmoil as the pension funds and corporate investors and the small guy in the street cash in and move elsewhere to a Euro free investment choice.

If you are unaware of the proposed fiscal policy - please don't be an alarmist about it.

[StreetCowboy]

I do bizarre quite well but it does not detract from my opinions

I suggest that turnout depends on many more things than motivation. To a person with a high level of political interest it is unthinkable not to vote, but there is a huge number of people who really don't care much and will only vote if it's not raining and the queue is not too long, etc. Firing them up is what campaigning is all about, but campaigning tends to use tricks and half-truths, where-as in here we are not campaigning, we are debating, so there's no need to hide from facts.

It's not unreasonable to guess that Obama won twice because he is patently the better man. But USA politics is a different animal in many ways, so comparisons are complicated and rarely present any clarity.

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The assumption that UK will get out of the EU is founded on minority populist rhetoric and wishful thinking. The reality is that UK is now committed to the EU as a trading group and benefits from the world-wide recognition of the standards. Scots are already in the EU and the brussels factor is part of daily life, so staying in will produce "no change" in that regard and is a non-topic in campaigning.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

2 years is just the final run-up to the vote. What many people fail to recognise is that independence was already high on the agenda during the last Scottish parliament vote, and pro-independence won that day in no uncertain fashion. What is actually happening now is a process in which everyone is being given a huge amount of time to decide what they really want. Debates such as this one will run in countless places across Scotland and absolutely no-one can say that they didn't have time to think it through.

Many countries, including some of the supposedly greatest, would do well to look at the process currently going on in Scotland. It is a master lesson in democracy.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

As of yet I am unaware what fiscal policy an indepandant Scotland will adopt, Pound or Euro?

Will those of us who hold investments with the likes of Alliance and Baillie Gifford be offered the choice of keeping our investments in Pound Sterling or will they automatically be transferred over to Euros?

I wonder what, what if scenarios are taking place right now at the above mentioned institutions, financial turmoil as the pension funds and corporate investors and the small guy in the street cash in and move elsewhere to a Euro free investment choice.

No. The denomination of funds is independent of the location or nationality of the investment holder, and also independent of the nationality or location of the fund manager. The choice is up to the fund manager, though that choice may be influenced by the markets in which he sells his products, or the markets in which he invests.

SC

[StreetCowboy]

I do bizarre quite well but it does not detract from my opinions

I suggest that turnout depends on many more things than motivation. To a person with a high level of political interest it is unthinkable not to vote, but there is a huge number of people who really don't care much and will only vote if it's not raining and the queue is not too long, etc. Firing them up is what campaigning is all about, but campaigning tends to use tricks and half-truths, where-as in here we are not campaigning, we are debating, so there's no need to hide from facts.

It's not unreasonable to guess that Obama won twice because he is patently the better man. But USA politics is a different animal in many ways, so comparisons are complicated and rarely present any clarity.

The inclusion of young voters is perfectly reasonable if you take a view that the future is theirs, so they should have a say in what happens. I am unaware of any reports that under-25's are the "worst" voting group.

The assumption that UK will get out of the EU is founded on minority populist rhetoric and wishful thinking. The reality is that UK is now committed to the EU as a trading group and benefits from the world-wide recognition of the standards. Scots are already in the EU and the brussels factor is part of daily life, so staying in will produce "no change" in that regard and is a non-topic in campaigning.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

2 years is just the final run-up to the vote. What many people fail to recognise is that independence was already high on the agenda during the last Scottish parliament vote, and pro-independence won that day in no uncertain fashion. What is actually happening now is a process in which everyone is being given a huge amount of time to decide what they really want. Debates such as this one will run in countless places across Scotland and absolutely no-one can say that they didn't have time to think it through.

Many countries, including some of the supposedly greatest, would do well to look at the process currently going on in Scotland. It is a master lesson in democracy.

The chances of the UK joining the euro are very slim indeed because that would put the regulation of UK banks beyong the reach of London, and that is patently unacceptable to the City.

As of yet I am unaware what fiscal policy an indepandant Scotland will adopt, Pound or Euro?

Will those of us who hold investments with the likes of Alliance and Baillie Gifford be offered the choice of keeping our investments in Pound Sterling or will they automatically be transferred over to Euros?

I wonder what, what if scenarios are taking place right now at the above mentioned institutions, financial turmoil as the pension funds and corporate investors and the small guy in the street cash in and move elsewhere to a Euro free investment choice.

If you are unaware of the proposed fiscal policy - please don't be an alarmist about it.

I would think that people who were unaware of what was going to happen would have good grounds to be alarmed, until sufficient information was put before them to put their minds at rest.

Just kidding! Don't worry, it will all be fine, so long as we all have hope. And faith. And determination. Big Eck will look after us...

SC