Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

You've made comments about the attendance of the rally that you believed to be true at that time,

Do you really believe that?

[Jamaldo]

I have no idea if it's a stunning achievment or not. But he didit nevertheless.

The pollls are pretty much the way we find these things out. It is definitely a better way of doing it than listening to anecdotal evidence of clowns delivering leaflets anyway. Maybe you have better evidence that the yes campaign ISN'T actually languishing miles behiund in this campaign. If so, pony it up for us to see.

People on both sides have stated that polling organisations use different sets of criteria in these polls. I've yet to see a single poll which simply asks the question which will be asked in the referendum, with no "Don't Know" option added.

Don't get me wrong, Yes are behind. But it's not miles behind as some extremely biased ones suggest. For example, polls saying only a quarter of people support it? Utter, utter bollocks. There is also just under a year to go. You seem convinced people won't change their mind and vote Yes. The other way round is extremely unlikely.

[Ad Lib]

The point of my post earlier today wasn't to do with Sturgeon, and more about what could be seen as double standards from you. I've previously asked if her making a statement that she believed to be true made her a liar. I say no. I don't think you answered that, but feel free to refresh my memory. You've made comments about the attendance of the rally that you believed to be true at that time, and the information you had turned out to be wrong. Does that make you a liar? I say no. But it highlights what could be taken as double standards. You're quick to condemn Sturgeon when you haven't got a clue what she knew, but happy to say that you made comments in good faith. That's all.

To answer your question about sources, as I've said several times, it is my opinion - no more or less valid than yours - that she will have had a team of experts and advisors to consult. A quick search of "snp advisors" throws up over 10,000 results. Here's the first article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9541830/Alex-Salmond-spends-1-million-on-special-adviser-army-for-independence.html

That shows, as you will no doubt be well aware already, that political parties use special advisors (spads) and experts. This article is from 2012, well after the alleged lies from 2006 but it illustrates the point and backs up my opinion that Sturgeon's comments will have been made based on advice from others. I'm not going to look through 10,000 search results to see if I can find the names of who specifically advised Sturgeon back in '06, but they could be in there somewhere.

You and others have given your opinion that she lied, but that is simply your opinion and it doesn't make it a fact. For all I know you might even be right, but without knowing what advice she received (and you don't know that any more than I do) we can only speculate.

*sigh*

The question is not "do you have advisers". It's "disclose the basis for your assertion and the source or sources from which you derived that position".

Of course the SNP have advisers. What is being asked is by whom Nicola Sturgeon was advised and were there reasonable grounds to rely on that information having regard to all the circumstances. You singularly failed to disclose whose advice she was relying on.

I tend towards the position that she is a liar rather than negligent as to the sources she relies on, because I credit her with being more intelligent than some SNP supporters evidently do.

In my case, I openly relied on Police Scotland's figures released on the day of the march itself. I made no secret of that being what I relied on, and argued that it should be trusted because they are a public body subject to accountability mechanisms on the accurate reporting and response to things like marches, which engage questions of preserving public safety and order. I was sceptical of organisers' figures and a tweet from Scotland's police's equivalent of a trade union, because the same is not true of these organisations and in the former case there is a vested interest in misrepresenting the reality (which in the end it appears they did not do).

When contrary evidence was presented to me by the same source as I previously relied on, I openly accepted the revised situation.

I therefore did not lie, though was in error to have been so trusting of the initial figures put forward by Police Scotland. I would hasten to add, however, that I am not an elected official, and I was not making representations to the public at large. I was not asserting from a position of authority what would or would not be the case as a matter of law on an important issue affecting millions of people, and I was only ever conditionally relying on information in respect of which the source was fully disclosed, in the public domain, and subject to scrutiny.

The same cannot be said of Nicola Sturgeon.

[Reynard]

People on both sides have stated that polling organisations use different sets of criteria in these polls. I've yet to see a single poll which simply asks the question which will be asked in the referendum, with no "Don't Know" option added.

Don't get me wrong, Yes are behind. But it's not miles behind as some extremely biased ones suggest. For example, polls saying only a quarter of people support it? Utter, utter bollocks. There is also just under a year to go. You seem convinced people won't change their mind and vote Yes. The other way round is extremely unlikely.

But how do you know that if you don't accept the polls?

[xbl]

*sigh*

The question is not "do you have advisers". It's "disclose the basis for your assertion and the source or sources from which you derived that position".

Of course the SNP have advisers. What is being asked is by whom Nicola Sturgeon was advised and were there reasonable grounds to rely on that information having regard to all the circumstances. You singularly failed to disclose whose advice she was relying on.

I tend towards the position that she is a liar rather than negligent as to the sources she relies on, because I credit her with being more intelligent than some SNP supporters evidently do.

In my case, I openly relied on Police Scotland's figures released on the day of the march itself. I made no secret of that being what I relied on, and argued that it should be trusted because they are a public body subject to accountability mechanisms on the accurate reporting and response to things like marches, which engage questions of preserving public safety and order. I was sceptical of organisers' figures and a tweet from Scotland's police's equivalent of a trade union, because the same is not true of these organisations and in the former case there is a vested interest in misrepresenting the reality (which in the end it appears they did not do).

When contrary evidence was presented to me by the same source as I previously relied on, I openly accepted the revised situation.

I therefore did not lie, though was in error to have been so trusting of the initial figures put forward by Police Scotland. I would hasten to add, however, that I am not an elected official, and I was not making representations to the public at large. I was not asserting from a position of authority what would or would not be the case as a matter of law on an important issue affecting millions of people, and I was only ever conditionally relying on information in respect of which the source was fully disclosed, in the public domain, and subject to scrutiny.

The same cannot be said of Nicola Sturgeon.

You did however call me a liar when I said that the police had said it was "over 8300".

[Reynard]

People on both sides have stated that polling organisations use different sets of criteria in these polls. I've yet to see a single poll which simply asks the question which will be asked in the referendum, with no "Don't Know" option added.

Don't get me wrong, Yes are behind. But it's not miles behind as some extremely biased ones suggest. For example, polls saying only a quarter of people support it? Utter, utter bollocks. There is also just under a year to go. You seem convinced people won't change their mind and vote Yes. The other way round is extremely unlikely.

I'm not convinced at all that the polls won't move a bit towards yes. I think it's inevitable they will do. Some fo the don't knows are absolutely going to vote yes in this just as some of them are going to vote no.

[Ad Lib]

You did however call me a liar when I said that the police had said it was "over 8300".

I don't think I did. Perhaps you can quote me.

Please note that the Scottish Police Federation are not "the police". "Police Scotland" are "the police" and the Scottish Police Federation are the equivalent of a police trade union.

[Jamaldo]

But how do you know that if you don't accept the polls?

Touche.

It's more a feeling than anything else. I feel Yes is behind but I also feel the tide is turning slightly.

For the record I don't take the poll that put Yes 1% ahead as some sort of proof that Yes is going to win, because it isn't.

[Colkitto]

David Cameron pledged to the Scottish Tory conference that he would fight “head, heart, body and soul” against Scottish independence.

But says the independence debate is for Scots to decide after declining to debate with Alex Salmond. Bit of a contradiction here is there not?

[Reynard]

David Cameron pledged to the Scottish Tory conference that he would fight “head, heart, body and soul” against Scottish independence.

But says the independence debate is for Scots to decide after declining to debate with Alex Salmond. Bit of a contradiction here is there not?

And Alex Salmond also told him to keep his nose out of Scottish affairs. It seems you get yourself all bent out of shape about Camerons contradiction and yet are perfectly at ease with Salmonds. Why?

[Colkitto]

And Alex Salmond also told him to keep his nose out of Scottish affairs. It seems you get yourself all bent out of shape about Camerons contradiction and yet are perfectly at ease with Salmonds. Why?

Because he didn't butt out that's the point. It's not difficult to understand.

He's either involved or he's not. And by the look of things he and Westminster are involved. So he should be up for the debate.

[H_B]

I'm more interested to hear your case for Scotland remaining within the union

Then maybe you should have read it that last 3 times I have posted it, including after you Groundhog Dayed this question day after day.

[H_B]

The point of my post earlier today wasn't to do with Sturgeon, and more about what could be seen as double standards from you. I've previously asked if her making a statement that she believed to be true made her a liar. I say no.

How do you know she "believed it to be true"?

What is your evidence for this?

[H_B]

I'm not convinced at all that the polls won't move a bit towards yes. I think it's inevitable they will do. Some fo the don't knows are absolutely going to vote yes in this just as some of them are going to vote no.

I agree. The polls nearer the time will be a lot closer than the polls just now.

[xbl]

Stop lying. The police gave an estimated figure of just over 8300 on this march did they not? I didn't say there were exactly 8000 people.

Aha.

[Ad Lib]

Aha.

The words "stop lying" refer to the accusation that " accept the Unionist figure".

There was no "Unionist" figure.

"The police" did give a figure in the region of 8300. They later revised that figure.

[Swampy]

'just over 8300'

[Ad Lib]

'just over 8300'

Simple question: if someone told you there were "over 8300 people" at an event, would you think "they mean 20000-30000 people were at that event" or would you think "they mean a figure somewhere between 8300 and [e.g.] 10000, were at that event."

What is your instinct?

[nifty shade of grey]

The question is not "do you have advisers". It's "disclose the basis for your assertion and the source or sources from which you derived that position".

I don't know their names. I originally said that it shouldn't be too hard to find out, and no I won't spend the rest of the day trawling through 10,000+ search results try try and satisfy someone on a football forum.

Of course the SNP have advisers

Thank you. They will also have access to experts in various fields. That's why my opinion is that Sturgeon's comments were based on advice she was given, rather than her acting on her own and doing her own research. With the criticism that followed, maybe she wishes she had...

What is being asked is by whom Nicola Sturgeon was advised and were there reasonable grounds to rely on that information having regard to all the circumstances. You singularly failed to disclose whose advice she was relying on.

See above answers. I believe she was relying on the advice from her advisors, who's names may or may not be in the public domain. One would expect those advisors to be professionally competent, therefore that would be reasonable grounds to rely on them.

I tend towards the position that she is a liar rather than negligent as to the sources she relies on, because I credit her with being more intelligent than some SNP supporters evidently do.

This is where we have a difference of opinion - I credit her with being intelligent enough not to deliberately lie, especially when the SNP of all parties know that every word they say will be analysed to the nth degree by opposition parties and a hostile media. She'd be stupid to lie, especially on a high profile issue like the EU.

I've been asked for proof that she received advice. I don't have a smoking gun, but at least we agree that the SNP have advisors and I've based my opinion on the presumption that they will have consulted them, and other experts. All I've read from you (and others) until today was presented as a statement of fact that she lied, without anything to back that up. At least you're now only tending towards the position, and that's all I was looking for. I respect that other people's opinion is sometimes different than mine. I just found it funny that after me defending Sturgeon because I believe she relied on the information she'd been given, you ended up in similar situation when the attendance at the rally was confirmed. She was called a liar, while you clearly made your comments in good faith.

In my case, I openly relied on Police Scotland's figures released on the day of the march itself. I made no secret of that being what I relied on, and argued that it should be trusted because they are a public body subject to accountability mechanisms on the accurate reporting and response to things like marches, which engage questions of preserving public safety and order. I was sceptical of organisers' figures and a tweet from Scotland's police's equivalent of a trade union, because the same is not true of these organisations and in the former case there is a vested interest in misrepresenting the reality (which in the end it appears they did not do).

Fair enough.

When contrary evidence was presented to me by the same source as I previously relied on, I openly accepted the revised situation.

Yes, you did. And credit to you for that.

I therefore did not lie,

Agreed, as I've already stated.

though was in error to have been so trusting of the initial figures put forward by Police Scotland.

I can understand that. If you can't trust the police...

I would hasten to add, however, that I am not an elected official, and I was not making representations to the public at large. I was not asserting from a position of authority what would or would not be the case as a matter of law on an important issue affecting millions of people, and I was only ever conditionally relying on information in respect of which the source was fully disclosed, in the public domain, and subject to scrutiny.

The same cannot be said of Nicola Sturgeon.

Which is, surely, all the more reason for her to be careful what she says.

[~~~]

Yeah he's a Labour MP, who was returned as a Labour MP at the last general election. Unfortunately for him a lot of other Labour MPs didnt get returned at the last general election and his party didn't have enough Labour MPs to form a government. That's how the system works. Maybe his fault, maybe not his fault.

Hows you list of Alex's achievements coming along? Maybe he even got a private members bill to be debated? That would be quite good if he did. Did he?

No shit Sherlock, but as things stand his party got voted out, and considering he was in such a "high" position when they lost the election, well that sums up everything we need to know about Darling right now

The desperation is reeking off you here

When did I say I would make a list about Salmond as an MP?

Oh that's right, I didn't. I was jut reminding you of the fact he was an MP in the past.

You're just trying to day anything to deflect from the fact you've make an arse of yourself here.