Independence - how would you vote?

[JockMacAbre]

Its only my view, a view shared by about 65% of the nation that's against independence, I am sensing an enormous petted lip, when this poll is defeated

65%?

I'd love to see that poll... Oh wait, is that based on the old 1979 rule whereby undecided voters are deemed to be 'against' it.

[JockMacAbre]

So Salmonds charming and likes Star Trek.

So what.

You think most politicians don't appear that way when chatting about their hobby or passion outside politics.

Pointless YouTube clips.

He is still scared of facing Darling.

Why

So Salmonds charming and likes Star Trek.

So what.

You think most politicians don't appear that way when chatting about their hobby or passion outside politics.

Pointless YouTube clips.

He is still scared of facing Darling

Why would he be scared of Darling. Have you ever seen Darling try to talk? I can't understand Better Togethers thinking in appointing him as their campaign leader. He has such a chequered past, looks fucking weird(which shouldn't matter but potentially could to a bunch of people), and is drab as f**k. Even if there was an unequivocal case for staying in the union, Salmond would absolutely destroy this guy in a debate. The man is renowned for his oratory skills. BT should have gotten George Galloway in. Two egocentrics that love the sound of their own voice going at it in an independence debate. That would have been epic.

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

Why

Why would he be scared of Darling. Have you ever seen Darling try to talk? I can't understand Better Togethers thinking in appointing him as their campaign leader. He has such a chequered past, looks fucking weird(which shouldn't matter but potentially could to a bunch of people), and is drab as f**k. Even if there was an unequivocal case for staying in the union, Salmond would absolutely destroy this guy in a debate. The man is renowned for his oratory skills. BT should have gotten George Galloway in. Two egocentrics that love the sound of their own voice going at it in an independence debate. That would have been epic.

I absolutely agree with that.

Have they suddenly forgot how overwhelmingly unpopular Darling was just a short time ago? Its died down a bit in recent years, but in the reasons given above he is a terrible spokesman imo.

Any attempt to make these two debate would simply emphasize the case for independence.

[Big Rider]

Salmond would fucking toe Darling's clackersack.

[Saor Alba]

I'm an arsehole.

Oxford and Cambridge are generally seen as being the best universities, where the most talented people congregate.

The last two genuinely working class people to be Prime Minister in this country were Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Possibly ever Broon, although his background is the manse so you could argue there was some status there back in the day in this country.

Your background is not necessarily going to hold you back, but lack of decent education will. And the bulk of it has been smashed up by leftist government which will, in turn, mean that ordinary people will be held back. Scotland used to have an education system that other countries copied. Now it is shite. That alone will hold back talented people from ordinary backgrounds.

And Scotland is not going to vote for independence. cots have already seen through the SNP and its abysmal campaign. The majority of people are not thick weans on a football site with nothing to lose.

On you're first sentence. I entirely agree.

The fact that you blatantly lie (compulsively) and attempt to defend Margaret Thatcher who was a very close friend of Jimmy Savile says a lot about your true character!

Margaret Thatcher and the sham of her ‘ordinary’ background: http://planetpedro.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/margaret-thatcher-and-the-sham-of-her-ordinary-background/

The biggest myth about Margaret Thatcher was that her origins were in any way ordinary – as in her ‘ordinary’ background and upbringing, or that she was an ‘ordinary’ housewife who had somehow ended up at the top of politics. She was really from a middle-class background, and was the product of privilege, bankrolled by a millionaire.

Margaret Hilda Roberts came from a very comfortable background. Her father Alfred was not a simple shopkeeper: in fact, he owned several shops in Grantham, which he sold in 1958, reportedly for the equivalent of over £1 million. He served at various times as president of the Chamber of Trade, President of Rotary, a director of the Grantham Building Society, a director of the Trustee Savings Bank, chairman of the local National Savings Movement, a governor of the Kings School and Kesteven and Grantham Girls School (Margaret’s alma mater) and (surprisingly) local chairman of the Workers’ Educational Association, as well as a Methodist lay preacher.

Where individuals or groups are programmed in regards to Education is not proof of greater intellect or greater talent. Anyone with great memory, motivation and ambition can get themselves an educational degree. So long as they are prepared to spend the time that it takes and make the sacrifices required to do so, of course.

Cambridge, Oxford [Oxbridge] and Eton are generally seen as being the favourite universities of the British Establishment who pay the extortionate fees to send their children to them in full knowledge that in order to be thought of by their peers as fully certified members of the British Establishment, one must be programmed, or/and permit their children to be programmed, [mind-controlled] by the elitist professors at one of those establishments.

Past heads of MI6 consist almost entirely of Oxbridge alumni, and have the responsibility of collecting intelligence to pass onto the government: http://oxfordstudent.com/2013/01/24/oxford-spies-and-the-secret-service/

Censored, Savile's private letters to Mrs Thatcher: http://www.blacklistednews.com/Censored,_Savile%E2%80%99s_private_letters_to_Mrs_Thatcher%3A_Files_edited_two_months_ago%E2%80%A6_AFTER_child_abuse_claims_surfaced/23317/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Files edited two months ago... AFTER child abuse claims surfaced: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253929/Jimmy-Saviles-private-letters-Margaret-Thatcher-Files-edited-2-months-ago.html

Letter from Jimmy Savile to former PM released under 30-year rule

Declares his love for her in gushing 1980 note written following a lunch

Also refers to his 'girl patients' and says 'they all love you'

But other correspondence between the two has been censored

Savile spent 11 consecutive New Year's Eves with Mrs Thatcher

Revealed: Jimmy Savile's close friendship with Margaret Thatcher: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-jimmy-saviles-close-friendship-with-margaret-thatcher-8432351.html

Thatcher's Father Like Jimmy Savile?: http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/thatchers-father-like-jimmy-savile.html

[xbl]

I would suggest that the two sides in this debate are miles apart, I am firm in my views and I have heard nothing that will change my mind, I now have my life to get on with

Your views are based on no research and swallowing whatever the unionists tell you. You won't change your mind because your views are based on nothing but fear.

[Saor Alba]

We did vote "Yes" in 1979. The figures were as follows:

Yes 1,230,937 (51.62%)

No 1,153,500 (48.38%)

It was only the fact that (uniquely for this referendum) Westminster decided that anyone who didn't vote would be considered to have voted no. "Yes" had to win and achieve 40% of the total registered vote. As the Electoral Roll was hopelessly out of date, this was practically impossible.

For example, after the poll was held, a survey was carried out of the register in the Edinburgh Central constituency. This appeared to show that the register was so out of date that even in an area where major support for a "yes" vote might be expected, achievement of 40% of the electorate was virtually unattainable.

This was because the majority of electors lived in older tenements or newer Council blocks of flats where specific flat numbers were not specified. The work of electoral registration staff to obtain an accurate current register was almost impossible, and the same was true of most of Scotland's inner cities and larger towns.

Effectively, the people who had died or moved away were counted as "No" votes.

In addition, the 1979 referendum was not an independence referendum, as you appear to believe. The devolution that was on offer in 1979 contained fewer powers for the assembly than are currently available to the Scottish Parliament.

Most of the Nay-sayers are not worth the time debating due to their low-level wit but its nice to see people point out such facts for the many who may be sitting on the fence.

[archie guevara]

We need our own central bank, and our own currency.

[Ad Lib]

As much as I'm pro-independence, I don't think the fact that elites gravitate towards power is a compelling reason for it. The same will happen in an independent Scotland, just as it happens in most liberal democracies. You could argue, I guess, that the likes of Edinburgh are at least closer to the average reality for people than is Oxbridge, but either way there's likely to be a considerable opportunity and achievement gap between a PM and the average citizen no matter what.

The institutional structure of the Scottish Parliament is a much better reason. It is infinitely superior to the juvenile, late-medieval nonsense of Westminster. That plus the simple, undeniable fact that Scotland is different by most demographic measures.

The first point is interesting and prompted me to check something. Of the four First Ministers since devolution, only two of them went to proper Universities. McConnell went to Stirling and McLeish went to Heriot-Watt.

That said, of course over the longer-term, the intellectual elite of Scottish politics, most of which either resides within the SNP or with the other party's Scottish representatives or ex-pats in English constituencies at Westminster at present, will come from more highly regarded Universities. We'll probably see a lower propensity for private school pupils reaching the summit than with the UK as a whole, but the reason for tertiary stratification in politics is as much effect as cause. Post independence I'd still be expecting First Ministers mostly to come from Oxbridge, Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews and maybe Aberdeen.

The ambitious aim for the academic summit and then they go for the political one. It's not a bad thing. As long as we're mindful not consciously to shut-off people simply because of their background, there's no good reason for vilifying political success aligning with academic.

As for the second point, there are a number of regards in which Holyrood is *better* than Westminster, but it has corroded and regressed significantly in the last 7 or so years. Debates are petty, simplistic, lazily partisan, superficial and very insular. And it's been intensified by every debate coming to be seen first and foremost through the prism of the constitutional question. We can only hope that the referendum can settle the matter and we can have some proper considered consensual politics going forward.

[Savage Henry]

Salmond is the elected First Minister of Scotland. It is only right that he goes head to head with the elected Prime Minister of the UK on this matter. It says it all when Cameron won't answer that challenge.....He is after all our PM as well

Darling is the front man for a pressure group that would like Scotland to remain in the UK....nothing more. His level would be someone like Elaine C Smith

You would then accuse Cameron of overstepping into Scottish matters. The London-knows-best cliche would be thrown all over the place. It's entirely a devolved matter: the Scottish No campaign should justify their own position. Cameron's entirely right to not debate Salmond.

[xbl]

You would then accuse Cameron of overstepping into Scottish matters. The London-knows-best cliche would be thrown all over the place. It's entirely a devolved matter: the Scottish No campaign should justify their own position. Cameron's entirely right to not debate Salmond.

I'm inclined to agre wlth this, just like Salmond is right to ignore the bleating of that no-mark Darling.

[Assasinach]

Ahh , Orcsbridge, where admission is based on interview and amazingly the % of pupils from Private Schools (call them fee paying or Independent if you like, but even the Americans aren't so fuckin daft as to call them 'Public') has remained around a constant 45/50 the last 40 years. That despite the fact that over 80% of top grade students attended Publicly funded schools (you'll know them as State schools or maybe 'potting sheds' if you went private).

That's alot of places each year, year after year where about a 1/3rd of admissions are based on being a privileged c**t and denied to someone smarter. It's the uk way.

It has to be noted this only applies to the undergrad make-up. When it comes to post-grad and research then the proportion of Privately educated drops off a cliff. As the talent puddle they provide just wouldn't produce the goods.

Back to OP

I'm starting to realise I'm gonna be able to celebrate regardless.

If it's a No vote then so what? I stay where all the money goes anyway at present. It's Scotland that will continue to suffer the whims of the three/four london based tory parties.

Also, if it's a No vote and I continue to stay where I do , I'll be able to remain in the UK and still be able to feel and be treated like a foriegner alot of the time. My national sport and my National team will have less coverage than other sports on the uk national broadcaster , eg American football, tennis, F1, Horse racing , Show jumping, Moto gp , english women's football , every english football league club and on and on.

The press will also remain anti Scots, as we're easier to insult than the other foriegners who blight englandshire, full of stories about tartan scroungers, without the bigot brothers tosh they replace it with in their northern brittish editions.

Scotlands currency will continue to be often treated with more disdain than a nine ruppee note.

Where I stay will continue to have and likely increase the 30%+ non-uk citizens, that make it ok to live in an english tory sea.

If it's a Yes vote then all that will stay the same but the World will be a better place

[Savage Henry]

I'm inclined to agre wlth this, just like Salmond is right to ignore the bleating of that no-mark Darling.

Indeed.

[Perfect Circle]

1. I am not convinced that as a single nation we can generate enough monies to keep taxes as at a affordable level,and retain a decent level of services

2. Not sure Europe will welcome us with open arms, as is being suggested

3 Not convinced we will be an attractive place for big companies to come and set up, or in fact to keep the companies that are already here

4 Not convinced we can become strong enough to retain the best people here, and fend off a "brain drain"

5 Its a hard world when you are on the outside looking in, at least we are at the moment on the inside

6 In 30 years time I do not want us to be a 2011 "Ireland"

It always makes me think, there was a vote in 1979, if we had said "yes" then would we currently be Norway, Denmark or in fact would we be Ireland

As much as the "yes" campaign can "crank" it up, since the announcement of the vote, support for independence in the polls have hardly shifted, even as we get closer to the vote, lucky if 35% vote for independence, will be interested to see after the vote, what the SNP see as an embarrassment of a result

Thanks for putting forward your positive case for the Union.

1. Well the GERS figures are an obvious starting point. Scotland runs at Surplus. England around BEP and Subsidises Wales and Northern Ireland. Are you convinced the UK can keep taxes low and fund services? All I'm seeing is rising debt, rising interest payments and a reduction of public expenditure. Perhaps you can return and give the first ever positive case for the union. You could be the beacon of unionist politics.

2. While I strongly disagree. Would you been all that bothered? Clearly you can't be since the likelihood is the rUK will leave the in the next 10 years. Scotland can easily continue in the EEA, if there's any problems continuing our membership of the EU.

3. Well you must have been gutted last week when this was utterly blown out the water. Companies are COMMING to Scotland because of independence.

4. It's a global world and the free market will dictate where people work. What is clear is Scotland is outperforming the UK, and the UK is holding Scotland back. Isn't it brilliant to see Salmond traveling the globe( Asia in particular) and generating wealth jobs and business for your countrymen?

5. Currently we're on the outside looking in. Read your statement again.

6. Ireland 2011 bottomed out, as indeed did Iceland. The UK is heading exactly the same way as Ireland, if Interest rates rise. At best we'll be flat lining like Japan for ever. Labour were the David Murray of Politics and the Torries are Craig Whyte.

Your heart is clearly ruling your head, there is nothing wrong about getting teary eyed about Britains got Talent, or Last night at the proms. It's clearer that ever that politically Scotland and rUK are completely different. Democracy works when it reflects the people.

[Heidthebaw]

So why doesn't Darling debate with Blair Jenkins then? Both heads of their respective campaigns. Because Darling does not debate, Every press conference amd appearance is managed as to be challenge free. He's seems to be a bit 'mad' (self delusional even). If I was a unionist I'd be fuming at his inclusion as head of the campaign to save the union. It's like they want to lose.

[ecto]

I am glad to see that the "yes" voters are very much taking the SNP line, which is to behave in such a condescending manner towards anyone who does not share their view, it is a free vote its not about who can SHOUT THE LOUDEST

One question what size of defeat will the SNP attempt to claim a "moral" victory, if they get 40% of the vote, 35%?

[Heidthebaw]

I am glad to see that the "yes" voters are very much taking the SNP line, which is to behave in such a condescending manner towards anyone who does not share their view, it is a free vote its not about who can SHOUT THE LOUDEST

One question what size of defeat will the SNP attempt to claim a "moral" victory, if they get 40% of the vote, 35%?

Are you on drugs perchance?

[sons superhero]

I am glad to see that the "yes" voters are very much taking the SNP line, which is to behave in such a condescending manner towards anyone who does not share their view, it is a free vote its not about who can SHOUT THE LOUDEST

One question what size of defeat will the SNP attempt to claim a "moral" victory, if they get 40% of the vote, 35%?

Hi, your back I thought you had a life to get on with!

[xbl]

I am glad to see that the "yes" voters are very much taking the SNP line, which is to behave in such a condescending manner towards anyone who does not share their view, it is a free vote its not about who can SHOUT THE LOUDEST

One question what size of defeat will the SNP attempt to claim a "moral" victory, if they get 40% of the vote, 35%?

You've had reasonable answers, but chose to ignore them and throw a hissy fit because people dared to question your "feelings" and disprove them using actual researched facts.

What will it take to change your mind? Anything?

[JockMacAbre]

Ahh , Orcsbridge, where admission is based on interview and amazingly the % of pupils from Private Schools (call them fee paying or Independent if you like, but even the Americans aren't so fuckin daft as to call them 'Public') has remained around a constant 45/50 the last 40 years. That despite the fact that over 80% of top grade students attended Publicly funded schools (you'll know them as State schools or maybe 'potting sheds' if you went private).

That's alot of places each year, year after year where about a 1/3rd of admissions are based on being a privileged c**t and denied to someone smarter. It's the uk way.

It has to be noted this only applies to the undergrad make-up. When it comes to post-grad and research then the proportion of Privately educated drops off a cliff. As the talent puddle they provide just wouldn't produce the goods.

Back to OP

I'm starting to realise I'm gonna be able to celebrate regardless.

If it's a No vote then so what? I stay where all the money goes anyway at present. It's Scotland that will continue to suffer the whims of the three/four london based tory parties.

Also, if it's a No vote and I continue to stay where I do , I'll be able to remain in the UK and still be able to feel and be treated like a foriegner alot of the time. My national sport and my National team will have less coverage than other sports on the uk national broadcaster , eg American football, tennis, F1, Horse racing , Show jumping, Moto gp , english women's football , every english football league club and on and on.

The press will also remain anti Scots, as we're easier to insult than the other foriegners who blight englandshire, full of stories about tartan scroungers, without the bigot brothers tosh they replace it with in their northern brittish editions.

Scotlands currency will continue to be often treated with more disdain than a nine ruppee note.

Where I stay will continue to have and likely increase the 30%+ non-uk citizens, that make it ok to live in an english tory sea.

If it's a Yes vote then all that will stay the same but the World will be a better place

Och, delightful. A anti-iimigration nat, living in England whilst at the same time moaning about them, and spouting all sorts of racist, nonsensicle bile.

Should Scotland vote for independence, may you remain down south... that'd be lovely.