|
The Corporate posted:Anyone else in George Square yesterday to watch Alex Salmond get loudly booed by the public? Almost as cringeworthy as Osborne's incident at the Paralympics. There was another, louder boo when he was invited to speak but I can't find footage of it yet. I was just about to complain about that loving abomination that is the giant Olympic rings they threw up in George Square while my back was turned (Reportedly the biggest set of rings too. Just our luck, eh?) but googling to find out exactly when they got put up reveals they're apparently getting taken down on Monday, and thank gently caress for that. Considering there also seemed to be quite a few cheers it doesn't seem "Almost as cringeworthy" as George Osbornes 0 audible cheers but I haven't heard the "louder boo" yet.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I just...I don't understand people who aren't happy with what their country wins in Olympics. And what exactly did we win?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
The Corporate posted:Anyone else in George Square yesterday to watch Alex Salmond get loudly booed by the public? Almost as cringeworthy as Osborne's incident at the Paralympics. There was another, louder boo when he was invited to speak but I can't find footage of it yet. I had seen some figures floating around Channel 4 that after the Olympics 12% of Scots felt more in favour of independence while only 8% felt more Unionist. In any case, the Better Together campaigns approach to appropriating Scottish victories was terrible, and golden boy Andy Murray is, as far as I know, a member (or at least supporter) of the SNP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
Yeah. I get the feeling once we get to the ballot box in '14, our successes the last two months will mean little to nothing in any political arena, much less Independence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
I know Newsnetscotland is an openly pro-Independence website, but this article seems sound enough, and if it is true, should be rolled up and carried around by everyone in case of encountering the "Scotland's too poor" argument. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/5863-new-figures-reveal-scotland-wealthier-than-rest-of-uk-since-1980
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I know Newsnetscotland is an openly pro-Independence website, but this article seems sound enough, and if it is true, should be rolled up and carried around by everyone in case of encountering the "Scotland's too poor" argument. Seems pretty solid to me and backs up all the earlier evidence that supported it. No doubt there'll be some pathetic unionist spin on this like "the SNP fudged the numbers" or "they guys doing the survey didn't take X or Y into consideration" or they'll try and spin the population percentages into a confusing way that trick the public into thinking the opposite of what they mean. Their usual shite really. To be honest I'm more interested in seeing which news outlets pick up this story (even if they just report that more evidence supports the claim that Scotland can sustain itself) because it'll be a further litmus test for media bias.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Kin posted:Their usual shite really. You don't see the irony of railing against unionist spin while at the same time holding up numbers published by the SNP? Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Red7 posted:You don't see the irony of railing against unionist spin while at the same time holding up numbers published by the SNP? Not particularly as a majority of things that Unionists spout have typically been shown to be lies or disinformation to anyone who does a little research while, from my perspective, the negative connotations of the SNP have often only really been claimed by Unionists, often with little to no evidence to back them up. This is something that you yourself have attempted to just do by insinuating that the numbers presented in the report are false, despite having absolutely no evidence to prove so. They're "lies, damned lies, and statistics" are they? Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
Kin posted:This is something that you yourself have attempted to just do by insinuating that the numbers presented in the report are false, despite having absolutely no evidence to prove so. I haven't at all, I implied they are as suspect as the unionist numbers. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a Mark Twain quote not a indictment of SNP numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Red7 posted:I haven't at all, I implied they are as suspect as the unionist numbers. Once again, prove it. And if you're not implying that the quote is an indictment of the SNP numbers then you can't be claiming it as an indictment of any other numbers so why quote it in the first place? edit: typo Kin fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Kin posted:you can be claiming it as an indictment of any other numbers Yes. Or at least numbers that are sourced from organisations that are overtly arguing for or against something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Kin posted:Once again, prove it. THE TRUTH IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE*  * or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Support Scottish Independence or perish. I will literally crush England beneath me. I'm trying to lose weight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Kin posted:Once again, prove it. He is literally claiming that no statistics constitute any proof of anything. It's uh, kind of a thing here in america. EDIT: We're so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Hey guys, so I wrote this piece for my university's newspaper, it's gotten a good reaction so far and I thought maybe some of you (students in Scotland especially) might like to have a read as well. Page 9, top article. I didn't choose the title. http://issuu.com/gaudie/docs/freshers_edition_2012_complete
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 13:53
|
|
|
Just to let everyone know that tomorrow, Edinburgh will be host to the March and Rally for Scottish Independence. Starts at 11am and the route will be from the Meadows to Princes Street Gardens which is where the rally will take place at 1pm. Weather forecast is pretty good so there should hopefully be a decent turnout.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
So it looks like there will be an independence referendum in the fall of 2014. It will be a single yes/no question about whether Scotland should sever its union with England, there won't be a "Devo Max" option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
Thewittyname posted:It will be a single yes/no question about whether Scotland should sever its union with England, there won't be a "Devo Max" option. Is that a good thing, so as not to split the "Yes" vote?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
ekuNNN posted:Is that a good thing, so as not to split the "Yes" vote? Well, it all depends. You could be really cynical and say the SNP wanted a Devo-Max option because it would be far easier to vote for (the vast majority of people I've spoken to said they'd vote for it) instead of a straight Yes/No so they'd get more power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I sincerely doubt Independence will happen. I'm imagining a No2AV style campaign starting up in the runup and that people will be afraid and uncertain. It also doesn't help that literally every single news and media organisation is against it. I can't name one, single nespaper or news channel that is not dead-set against it and reports on the issue with that bias apparent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
Honestly it looks like the Unionists have fallen straight into a trap by giving away so many concessions in exchange for removing a second question (that the SNP didn't even want in the first place). In exchange for a single question the SNP will get:
Either the Unionists are supremely confident they can win a referendum despite these concessions, or they have just missed the forest for the trees by focusing too much on the second question. Judging by the way the Unionists have managed their campaign so far I would hazard a guess at the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
That article better be loving wrong, and they better have Devo-Max on the vote. I'd rather take the slow road to independence by showing people we can do just fine with more powers, than force them to jump all-in up front.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:Either the Unionists are supremely confident they can win a referendum despite these concessions, or they have just missed the forest for the trees by focusing too much on the second question. Judging by the way the Unionists have managed their campaign so far I would hazard a guess at the latter. Well it's more like, from the Unionists' point of view, devo max IS independence- it will warm the population up for full independence and blunt the benefits of having Scotland in the union in many of the same ways independence would. And devo max would have won, period, it's just too easy to make the case for. So from the unionists' point of view, getting devo max off the ballot was their highest priority in those negotiations and they succeeded. Can they win the rest of the fight? Maybe not. But this is the only path they have to getting everything they want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
This will end up with a no vote, and just like the AV referendum shut down all possibility of a more representative voting system for a generation, there'll be no hope for independence for many years. Devo Max was a surefire winner, but as usual with referendums, the public gets asked the questioned the politicians want answered, not what their opinion is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Pasco posted:This will end up with a no vote, and just like the AV referendum shut down all possibility of a more representative voting system for a generation, there'll be no hope for independence for many years. Is there any reason for a no vote on one referendum to preclude any further discussion beyond politicians using it as an excuse to keep the Status quo? I mean I'm not particularly in favour of Scotland leaving the union but if the SNP (or hopefully a better pro-independence party) continue to command a majority in the Scottish Parliament and / or the Scottish people decide in a few years they really want independence I don't see how London could say "nope, you can't have another referendum because the last one went our way."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
So what would actually happen if the referendum passes? Would Scotland then be legally independent as a direct result, or would the Scottish Parliament still have to pass legislation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Is there any reason for a no vote on one referendum to preclude any further discussion beyond politicians using it as an excuse to keep the Status quo? You act as if a better reason is needed. The fact is that SNP's support will diminish significantly if independence fails, because people are too embarrassed to vote for losers. SNP continuing to shout about independence after it loses will just cause SNP to lose more votes. EDIT: Something important to realize about elections, referendums, extended political fights, etc. is that support for the winners get a huge kick once they've actually won. If support in the referendum for independence is 49%, it'll be down to 40% by the following thursday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You act as if a better reason is needed. The fact is that SNP's support will diminish significantly if independence fails, because people are too embarrassed to vote for losers. SNP continuing to shout about independence after it loses will just cause SNP to lose more votes. I was not labouring under the impression it wouldn't be reason enough in general terms but I don't see it as some kind of impassible barrier. The Tories are continuing to do as much damage as they possibly can to the UK. The appeal of leaving the union will continue to increase. Plus it is doubtful the Tories would be able to resist doing something especially spiteful to Scotland if the referendum failed which would at least keep the fires stoked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:So what would actually happen if the referendum passes? Would Scotland then be legally independent as a direct result, or would the Scottish Parliament still have to pass legislation? As I understand it Westminister would have to enter negotiations with the Scottish Parliament for the final independence settlement which would then be agreed on in a vote by both parliaments. The SNP's aim is to have the Scottish elections in 2016 be first to an independent parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You act as if a better reason is needed. The fact is that SNP's support will diminish significantly if independence fails, because people are too embarrassed to vote for losers. SNP continuing to shout about independence after it loses will just cause SNP to lose more votes. You'd be right if it wasn't for the fact that the 2007 and 2010 elections have shown that the SNP can successfully separate support for independence from support for the SNP. Plus factor in Johann Lamont pinning her colours to the anti-devolution lot. Yes, you read that right, her latest speeches indicate that Labour's focus will be on Westminster and local councils and not Holyrood. This articulates it better than me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
At this does it seem realistic that the Yes coalition can gain 25-30% support or so before 2014?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 06:56
|
|
|
Anyone got any idea if expat scots who retained their citizenship get a vote or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
Tithin Melias posted:Anyone got any idea if expat scots who retained their citizenship get a vote or not? It's based on residency only, like the SP elections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
I like the decision about the voting age but that's a horrible question:quote:Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Y/N) 'Do you agree' should be replaced with 'Should' as using agree or disagree has connotations that should be avoided. And there's also confusion about what the word country means as Scotland is already a country but the alternatives that come to mind have their own weaknesses...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 09:00
|
|
|
zero alpha posted:At this does it seem realistic that the Yes coalition can gain 25-30% support or so before 2014? That's more than long enough for the support to change that much. I couldn't say about gaining specifically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
I was actually kinda hoping someone would read my post about having little hope and say "hey, there's some good things to keep in mind:" but apparently everyone agrees we're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 10:41
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:I was actually kinda hoping someone would read my post about having little hope and say "hey, there's some good things to keep in mind:" but apparently everyone agrees we're hosed. Ok, hope. Here goes. The IMF have revised Britain's growth to -0.4%, yet Osborne and Cameron refuse to change tack, Osborne says austerity will last until 2018. So, the more the Yes campaign make of this economic mismanagement and incompetence, the less the No campaign can peddle the too poor to succeed myth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 10:59
|
|
|
Seriously by 2014 it is likely there will be much stronger reasons to leave the union than there are now. I had a look through the thread and couldn't find anything but what would be the case if what Barroso said a couple of weeks ago is true and Scotland has to reapply to the EU? How long would it take to get back in and how much would it matter? I assume even if it happens Scotland (and Catalonia etc) would be fast tracked back in because the EU wont want to appear to be breaking up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Seriously by 2014 it is likely there will be much stronger reasons to leave the union than there are now. There was an interview in Catalonia with an EU official who was asked about having to re-apply to the EU. The Vienna Convention states that new countries are absolved from their parent country's international treaty obligations- this would seem to include EU membership. However, this applies to colonies becoming independent, rather than countries like Scotland and Catalonia who were countries before annexation. Never mind that the UK exists because of the union of crowns between Scotland and England- if Scotland has to reapply upon independence, so would the rUK.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Leggsy posted:As I understand it Westminister would have to enter negotiations with the Scottish Parliament for the final independence settlement which would then be agreed on in a vote by both parliaments. The SNP's aim is to have the Scottish elections in 2016 be first to an independent parliament. I think the flow chart would go Westminster then the Scottish Parliament given that in 1707 it went Scottish Parliament then Westminster. Obviously, like you say, there would be negotiations first because its not like Westminster can claim authority over a well attended referendum (one of the reasons why we don't have them very often).
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 11:27
|
|
