renton

Except that devo max was never properly scoped, it's a nebulous concept at best. How can you properly campaing for that unless you work out in advance with the Unionist parties and British government what it means? Seocndly, the second question would've left yes in the position of campaigning for two positions - as far as political movements go, it would've robbed any dynamism from the campaign. LIkely, Cameron didn't want it becuase he thought it could win easily and he didn't want any more devolution. yes didn't want it becuase it would likely split the vote in favour. I can't see any advantages to either side having Devo max on the ticket.

Yes, but you don't care what's ont he table becuase you don't particularly care about further devolution (in fact you'd probably disband Holyrood if you could) but try and put yourself in the head of someone who actually wants significant further devolution. You are being asked to choose between definitely getting all areas devolved (but without maintaining the Union) or choosing between some great uncertainty that may never come to pass. What way would you jump?

Well, aye. if you'd read the very next sentence of my post, you'd have seen that I said exactly that. Surely, however, you can see the weakness in that strategy, no matter how technically correct it is. Say No to definite change in 2014 in the hope of getting firstly, one party to put your preferred devolution package in it's manifesto for 2015, then hope said party wins the GE. Suirely better for the parties to get together now, and at least agree a minimum package that suits all parties tha tthey can then put to the Scottish elecotrate in 2014, promising that they will all enact said package should they win in 2015?

And there is the problem. Without specifying what devolution package is on offer, it's left to folk to interpret for themselves what the question means. For some it might be devolution of everything but defence and foreign policy, for others it might be a simple tweaking of the tax base. Until BT puts it's plans in place for what each of it's constituent parts are planning on offering then there is no way to know exaclty how those numbers will split. If those 32% want devo-max, and BT offer some paltry national conversation on devolving the DVLA, then it's resoanble to suggest they'll jump into the Indy camp.

Wasnt a sclaff at all, for whatever williamsons faults: not strong enough to play up top, not fast enough to play out wide... he was actually a very good finisher, probably the most finessed finisher in tbe squad at the time.

You really can't beat a bit of PKD (or if you fancy a bit of classic sci fi, have you read Stanslaw Lem's Solaris - bares little resemblence to the shit movie adaption, honest)

I remember McGlynn touting mackie when he made his debut vs. Morton at the age of 15 (youngest Rovers debut?) Wonder why that never worked out.

Exactly, Bryce looked awful in the second. Vaughn looks the part in the first. Interestingly Vaughn, Callachan, Donaldson and Laidlaw come from the first couple of intakes after McGlynn totally revamped the system from the youngest age group and up.

Perhaps he's hiding in the oversized spaces between the words in your post?

I honestly remembered seeing something to the contrary, despite it being counterintuitive. As for the poll, well, not much, the top line is skewed by the weighting which would assume a Lamont led government in 2016 in defiance of all other available polling data, as well as a relatively large vote for the Tories. Below that headline is the number of Labour voters defecting to Yes semes ot have an upward trend, which if continued as it has over the last year could see ~25% of them vote yes on the day. It's that upwards Labour yes support and a kick up in SNP support from the alst one that seems to drive the 3% to yes swing. Ironically, Panelbase, every Yes supporters favoured polling company, would likely show the same results as quite static, as their Holyrood weighting would mean the SNP wer epresnet in alrger numbers such that any swing to yes from labour would form a lower percentage of the overall sample. Other than that, the gender gap is still alive and kicking, f**k knows how you deal with that. As for the white paper, it looks like amongst the undecided voters it's had a slight positive effect, but then I doubt it's intention was to provide an immediate masive swing in the polls anyway.

I think I acceptedvthat correction at the time. If not then yeah the evidence points that way.

That weighting in the tables does look weird, and seems to have more Labour than SNP voters, while aloting the Tories a larger share of the vote than might otherwise make sense. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Scotland/ipsos-mori-scotland-monitor-tables-december-2013.pdf I'm not really making a comment about the veracity or 'fairness' of the polling, I'm just sad enough to find the methodology interesting.

I'm guessing the party affiliation stuff is broken down by Westminster intention, rather than Holyrood for Ipsos-Mori

Note the trend in Labour voters on that graph. Alongside the idea that the less afluent areas are liable to vote yes, are we seeing a small amount of momentum in the Labour heartlands towards yes?

So what is Scotland's value to the UK, and why is this value not transferable to a non idealistic world in order to make Scotland succesful as an independent nation?

What are the issues that have not been answered satisfactorally and what bar have you set that defines a satisfactory answer?

By definition it does, if we don't have enough about us to survive independently then we must rely on incoming assets and revenue from elsewhere to survive, which would mean tha tother parts of the UK, principally England was pouring revneue into scotland to allow it to survive. By definition Scotland would be of negative value to England. Fact is we have more than enough to survive and prosper as an independent nation.

How can we be a valuable and integral part of a Union, and therefore bringing some material assets to the table, but apparently unable to make a go of it by ourselves?

There is a difference between being smart and being informed. I think Swampy is correct when he says low information voters will vote No: regardless of IQ/intellect.

http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/12/02/stephen-tierney-the-scottish-constitution-after-independence/

Let's all party like it's 1999.....

A very quick skim through selected sections of the white paper reveal it to be very detailed, and hitting the right notes for me at least. Here's hoping.

top 5/6 naitons for what?

Quite thought provoking: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/21/death-penalty-former-executioner-jerry-givens

Greggy wallace's cum face?