Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

he's not talking about the yes camp.

he is talking about bat shit mental cybernats.

On this forum though, the Unionists are just as dishonest as he describes, if not more so. They tell lies, deflect, accuse, cheerlead, and almost never put forward any actual argument. They are also the PRIME examples of the closed mind mentality, resorting to their mantra of "you're going to lose", over and over again. And yet, thats all fine. No, the problem is those nasty nats.

Yes supporters engage with the public, Project Fear hold their meetings in secret place. Yes websites encourage discussion, Project Fear censor. Yes Scotland set out their vision. Project Fear set out a nightmare vision. And yet, Project Fear supporters hold Yes supporters to a standard far, far higher than they themselves adhere to. Yes must be whiter than white, must never slip. Project Fear? Whatever.

You went through a stage of muttering darkly about civil unrest in the event of a no vote - I recollect Swampy basically telling you to button it.

I suspect this is what HB has been alluding to also when talking about your civil unrest.

Myself and Swampy have many disagreements. This is because we are independence supporters. We can disagree with each other. This is what separates us from Unionists. We don't always have to agree, but we are capable of disagreeing in a civil manner and discussing things like grown ups. I appreciate that isn't fashionable, but there you go.

On the subject of Massie, I actually have a fair amount of time for him. Sometimes he resorts to his easy and lazy tropes to cater to his readers, but other times he is actually a reasonable voice. He's certainly one of the Unionist commentators I have the most time for.

[roverthemoon]

Yes supporters engage with the public, Project Fear hold their meetings in secret place. Yes websites encourage discussion, Project Fear censor. Yes Scotland set out their vision. Project Fear set out a nightmare vision. And yet, Project Fear supporters hold Yes supporters to a standard far, far higher than they themselves adhere to. Yes must be whiter than white, must never slip. Project Fear? Whatever.

This is hilarious. I have never read such four legs good, two legs bad nonsense.

[roverthemoon]

@YesScotland: A No vote is a real gamble with Scotland's future. A massive gamble with our children's future. #Indyref #VoteYes

Yes Scotland tweeted the above earlier today. Great positivity there. Replace Yes with No and those advocating a yes vote would have labelled it scaremongering...and rightly so

[xbl]

This is hilarious. I have never read such four legs good, two legs bad nonsense.

Ever read this forum? Ever read the Daily Telegraph? Heard about the launch of Project Fear Glasgow? In a secret undisclosed location.

[Enigma]

Yes Scotland tweeted the above earlier today. Great positivity there. Replace Yes with No and those advocating a yes vote would have labelled it scaremongering...and rightly so

Uh huh. Both sides have been dealing in hypothetical comments and headlines to some extent at least. Do you think the yes campaign should be 100% happy-clappy positive? I don't.

I don't think the tweet is necessarily wrong or incorrect in any way either. Voters should consider the possible implications of a no vote for Scotland, of course, (and that it what I think this tweet is trying to encourage) or do you believe nothing will change? Do you think Yes was wrong for making this tweet?

[Swampy]

@YesScotland: A No vote is a real gamble with Scotland's future. A massive gamble with our children's future. #Indyref #VoteYes

Yes Scotland tweeted the above earlier today. Great positivity there. Replace Yes with No and those advocating a yes vote would have labelled it scaremongering...and rightly so

Well, it is a real gamble.

[xbl]

I think he's working towards a "both sides are as bad as the other" claim.

Edited to add, and while both sides are as bad as the other, it is primarily the Yes campaign at fault. And the Yes campaign should change.

[H_B]

 

If he receives this correspondence why didn't he use it in the article? He used some Tweets, then he used Wings comments. If there was really this barrage of 'loopy' missives wouldn't that illustrate his point perfectly?

 

He's decided to take a kick at the Nats for poor debating, and picked their own patch as an example of it. It is precisely analogous to hand-wringing about the lack of Hibs posts on Kickback. It is concern trolling, and the supposed Unionist elite on here is buying into it (probably because they like the Scot-baiting that Massie specializes in, to be fair.)

 

That said... I agree with you that there are people who are absolutely convinced that Yes will win, and that as things stand they are in for a shock of Rovian proportions. (That's not me saying that things can't change, but anyone who actually looks at the polls with something resembling a critical eye knows that if the referendum was tomorrow the vote would be around 57/43 and the opinion polling even worse for Yes.)

I dont think there are a lot of people convinced Yes will win. I think there are a lot of people convinced Yes should win.

I think thats what part of the article was getting at. And its shown here. With the wide eyed shock and head shaking that there are No voters and lots of them.

Yes is going to lose heavily. As i ve said before its about two things. The scale of the defeat and the scapegoat.

I think you can see from the propaganda blog where a possible candidate for the scapegoat is being shaved and shoved in an oven.

[H_B]

I did think about a caveat because I think you had, but I wasnt confident about representing those views accurately. I recall your internationalism ( a belief on a world without borders, but if so why is the UK an important part of that rather than Scotland on its own) I also recall you thinking that you personally would be worse off and tbat you thought Holyrood was a waste of time. Forgive me if im wrong, its not a deliberate misrepresenration of your views.

No thats fair enough.

Importantly though i like the uk s political balance. I think its a good thing that we have two ideologies competing decade by decade. I dont think that would be case in scotland.

[H_B]

 

Well, it is a real gamble.

Scaremongering!!!!

The poster is spot on here. If No tweeted that it would be derided. Yes tweet it and its beard stroking wise words.

[Baxter Parp]

No thats fair enough.

Importantly though i like the uk s political balance. I think its a good thing that we have two ideologies competing decade by decade. I dont think that would be case in scotland.

In what way is the current Labour Party's ideology different from the current Conservative Party's?

[the jambo-rocker]

My only problem with the Yes argument, is that there seems to be a lack of understanding towards why somebody will vote No. Now they will say, 'but I haven't heard a good argument for voting NO'. To an extent I can see their point, but the Yes campaign has got to remember that a fair amount of undecided to NO voters are voting because they are genuinely content with what they have, or they have an emotional attachment to the Union that logical points will not shift, shouting them down and makindgderogatory digs will not help.

This is why I have continued to keep putting myself in the shoes of a NO voter instead of shouting down their points, refusing aggressive persuasion as I've seen particularly on this thread many a time as well as my Twitter feed. There is still a larger amount of people in my hometown that are probably more in the majority of the No vote if anything (must be an east coast thing), whenever I talk to my mates about it in the pub. I could engage them, but I know that it would probably end in some verge of tears bitter argument and I refuse to get caught up in that in terms of risking the night out itself and pushing them further towards a NO.

From a NO perspective, if I'm thinking about it in the shoes of hardcore NO, then yeah I'm seeing it still as a risk that I should right question if it's worth gambling, I'm seeing a lack of transparency on the unnecessary need to keep the pound(Yes XBL I know lunacy to keep the pound on the first day, but not what I'm saying), when what they should have done is stated something along the lines of keep the currency until the end of the administration and put the agenda towards the wishes of the public vote in terms of the currency, along with the EU, and the Monarchy. I also would be thinking about it with some kind of dislike towards Salmond, the SNP and in particular the WoS blog.

Fortunately for myself, when I read their stuff I then start to notice that my arguments for the NO become out of spite to be against the SNP, rather than what I myself genuinely want to vote for in terms of Scotlands future. Personally, I find that I can overlook such annoyances as the Wos blog, or the SNP's need to turn everything Green without being more pragmatic about it, Sturgeon as a person in general, and that in spite of those reasons and the others mentioned, I still kinda want it to be YES, that I can argue against other YES voters, call them on their bullshit, and as strength.

I then start to realise the irony that an extreme amount (there are obviously some exceptions) of the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem are forgetting a lot of the reasons that they used to stand for, foregoing those very morals to go against the SNP out of spite and self-preservation, instead of because of what they want Scotland as a nation to be. If a third of the Yes vote can challenge themselves between so many of their peers, then surely the big majority from a proportional perspective should be at the very least in the same ballpark. I mean how many civil arguments to you see between the BT campaign do you genuinely see in their disagreements in what they want Scotland to be like in the event of NO vote.

I am Jambo-Rocker, and I'm am now 100% voting YES.

[Baxter Parp]

Scaremongering!!!!

The poster is spot on here. If No tweeted that it would be derided. Yes tweet it and its beard stroking wise words.

Derided by whom, internet forum posters? Who cares?

[Colkitto]

My only problem with the Yes argument, is that there seems to be a lack of understanding towards why somebody will vote No. Now they will say, 'but I haven't heard a good argument for voting NO'. To an extent I can see their point, but the Yes campaign has got to remember that a fair amount of undecided to NO voters are voting because they are genuinely content with what they have, or they have an emotional attachment to the Union that logical points will not shift, shouting them down and makindgderogatory digs will not help.

But how long will they have what they've got just now? This is where the No side are being deceptive. They have continually failed to explain to the Scottish people what a No vote will entail - despite the Electoral Commission reccommending they do so.

Things won't stay the same that's FACT! New Scotland Act powers for the Holyrood parliament and the inevitable reduction or even scrapping of the Barnet Formula will ensure that!

I don't believe that's getting through to the public so far and it's something both the Yes campaign and the Scottish government will need to push in earnest over the next few months.

There is no constitutional status quo as far as Scotland is concerned.......

[H_B]

Thats a good post jambo and i understand where you are coming from.

I think what people sometimes forget is that Britain is a pretty good country to live in. Not the best in the world, or even Europe but we have overall a good standard of living, low unemployment, free health care, lowish direct taxation. Its a ight.

New Scotland might be the same. It might be better. It might be worse.

Polling data has shown that Yes support is strongest in the poorer lower earning part of the demographic. This makes sense. If i was unemployed or on minimum wage id probably vote Yes. Why not? Cant be any worse than what you have right?

But the SNP wont and arent winning the middle income vote. We have a lot more to lose. And some of us believe we ll be worse off post indy.

The Brian Souters of the world wont. They wont pay. The very rich never do. And if you tried to make them they d just domicile themselves elsewhere.

[Reynard]

My only problem with the Yes argument, is that there seems to be a lack of understanding towards why somebody will vote No. Now they will say, 'but I haven't heard a good argument for voting NO'. To an extent I can see their point, but the Yes campaign has got to remember that a fair amount of undecided to NO voters are voting because they are genuinely content with what they have, or they have an emotional attachment to the Union that logical points will not shift, shouting them down and makindgderogatory digs will not help.

This is why I have continued to keep putting myself in the shoes of a NO voter instead of shouting down their points, refusing aggressive persuasion as I've seen particularly on this thread many a time as well as my Twitter feed. There is still a larger amount of people in my hometown that are probably more in the majority of the No vote if anything (must be an east coast thing), whenever I talk to my mates about it in the pub. I could engage them, but I know that it would probably end in some verge of tears bitter argument and I refuse to get caught up in that in terms of risking the night out itself and pushing them further towards a NO.

From a NO perspective, if I'm thinking about it in the shoes of hardcore NO, then yeah I'm seeing it still as a risk that I should right question if it's worth gambling, I'm seeing a lack of transparency on the unnecessary need to keep the pound(Yes XBL I know lunacy to keep the pound on the first day, but not what I'm saying), when what they should have done is stated something along the lines of keep the currency until the end of the administration and put the agenda towards the wishes of the public vote in terms of the currency, along with the EU, and the Monarchy. I also would be thinking about it with some kind of dislike towards Salmond, the SNP and in particular the WoS blog.

Fortunately for myself, when I read their stuff I then start to notice that my arguments for the NO become out of spite to be against the SNP, rather than what I myself genuinely want to vote for in terms of Scotlands future. Personally, I find that I can overlook such annoyances as the Wos blog, or the SNP's need to turn everything Green without being more pragmatic about it, Sturgeon as a person in general, and that in spite of those reasons and the others mentioned, I still kinda want it to be YES, that I can argue against other YES voters, call them on their bullshit, and as strength.

I then start to realise the irony that an extreme amount (there are obviously some exceptions) of the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem are forgetting a lot of the reasons that they used to stand for, foregoing those very morals to go against the SNP out of spite and self-preservation, instead of because of what they want Scotland as a nation to be. If a third of the Yes vote can challenge themselves between so many of their peers, then surely the big majority from a proportional perspective should be at the very least in the same ballpark. I mean how many civil arguments to you see between the BT campaign do you genuinely see in their disagreements in what they want Scotland to be like in the event of NO vote.

I am Jambo-Rocker, and I'm am now 100% voting YES.

Dramatic.

[Frosty]

Try to avoid snogging hookers.

Sound advice but surely prevention rather than a solution.

[nifty shade of grey]

@YesScotland: A No vote is a real gamble with Scotland's future. A massive gamble with our children's future. #Indyref #VoteYes

Yes Scotland tweeted the above earlier today. Great positivity there. Replace Yes with No and those advocating a yes vote would have labelled it scaremongering...and rightly so

If we replaced yes with no, it would have been pretty mild scaremongering compared with what's been said already by BT and co. The Yes campaign is largely positive, but statements like that one are necessary as they also have to remind people what a no vote means - something the no campaign are very reluctant to tell us.

The Yes campaign arguments are also based on facts, and if not on facts then on precedent. Is it not true to say that a no vote would mean Scotland keeps nuclear weapons? That austerity would continue? That we'd still get the Westminster government that the larger population in England voted for? That if Cameron wins the next election we could be dragged out of the EU? That Scottish troops can be sent to fight in illegal wars? That we could end up with a privatised NHS? More food banks? Bedroom Tax? Tuition fees? Prescription charges? I could go on, but you get the idea. A lot of this is already happening, so it's more than idle speculation. A no vote IS a massive gamble with our children's future.

Now compare that with the no campaign. So far we've been told that Scotland's oil is volatile, we were extinguished as a country, we couldn't defend ourselves, we can't use the pound, we'd be out of the EU and we'd have to use the Euro, England would bomb our airports, our family would become foreigners, we'd have border controls, we couldn't have bailed out the Scottish banks etc etc. All of these myths and many more have been exploded time and time again. Even when the no campaign try to be positive, they still have to put a fearbomb in there. Ruth Davidson was at it again only yesterday, pointing out the amount of trade between Scotland and England, or the number of companies based one one side of the border that employ people on the other. That's true, but the implication is that all this would stop if Scotland became independent, and that is nothing more than a blatant lie.

[the jambo-rocker]

Went for the bold in quotes because my quote function is playing up.

But how long will they have what they've got just now? This is where the No side are being deceptive. They have continually failed to explain to the Scottish people what a No vote will entail - despite the Electoral Commission reccommending they do so.

Things won't stay the same that's FACT! New Scotland Act powers for the Holyrood parliament and the inevitable reduction or even scrapping of the Barnet Formula will ensure that!

I don't believe that's getting through to the public so far and it's something both the Yes campaign and the Scottish government will need to push in earnest over the next few months.

There is no constitutional status quo as far as Scotland is concerned.......

But they are not really thinking about what things will be like after a NO vote, and why should they. I hardly look ahead to beyond next month let alone next month, and I'm fairly engaged compared to other. The No have no need to come out and say what things will be like, even though you see little arguments on the front line. Coming out and stating their case would be sheer lunacy as it would risk endangering their position. I agree that things will probably not be same, but once again this is really me speculating as there is no really substanative evidence until someone comes out of the trap and states their case.

Thats a good post jambo and i understand where you are coming from.

I think what people sometimes forget is that Britain is a pretty good country to live in. Not the best in the world, or even Europe but we have overall a good standard of living, low unemployment, free health care, lowish direct taxation. Its a ight.

New Scotland might be the same. It might be better. It might be worse.

Polling data has shown that Yes support is strongest in the poorer lower earning part of the demographic. This makes sense. If i was unemployed or on minimum wage id probably vote Yes. Why not? Cant be any worse than what you have right?

But the SNP wont and arent winning the middle income vote. We have a lot more to lose. And some of us believe we ll be worse off post indy.

The Brian Souters of the world wont. They wont pay. The very rich never do. And if you tried to make them they d just domicile themselves elsewhere.

Yeah, in terms of where I'm sitting, life isn't that bad, and I'm sure a lot of people are more than happy to stay under the assumption that things will still be fine, even like you have said, there really is no way you can do other than guess how things will be after the vote from both sides.

Yeah the middle class definitely have a lot more to lose and I have absolutely no problem at all with that being a reason from them and yourself alone to vote NO (probably the most logical out of what I've heard).

It's quite a difficult position when you think about it, because it seems to me that it will take an extraordinary amount of luck to bring more middle class voters over without losing any working class at the same time.

Dramatic.

It's how I roll

[nifty shade of grey]

Were they proper helium ballons on a string or were they shitty ASDA ones on a plastic pole with YES written on it in marker pen that gives the false impression of "floating"?

I wouldn't want the latter because you couldn't make a small incision near the knot to let enough helium out so I could inhale it and tell them to f**k off in a Joe Pasquali type voice.

Looks like balloons on sticks. You'll have to make your own pretend squeaky voice. Disappointing. http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/fife/anger-over-staff-hostility-to-independence-campaigners-at-bruce-festival-1.125186