strichener Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why is it proving "problematic" for him? I don't think he gave a monkeys when the referendum was held. They (Tory and Labour) did enough bitching about the uncertainty that delaying it would have. Read into this what you will, but my take on it was that the sooner it was held, the more likely their views would carry the vote. Holding an early election would have been suicide for the SG as the problems of 2008 were still playing out and the world was a much more uncertain place financially. ETA. The delay introducing the biting UK cuts are now starting to bite and provide ammunition for the Yes campaign. Something else that wasn't available previously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why is it proving "problematic" for him? I don't think he gave a monkeys when the referendum was held. Because if it was held in early 2013 then there was a better chance of winning for the No camp. Now they are haemorrhaging votes (latest poll shows No side down from 52% to 41%) leading up to the referendum in September 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Now they are haemorrhaging votes (latest poll shows No side down from 52% to 41%) leading up to the referendum in September 2014. What did that latest poll have Yes sitting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why? What else should he have been concerned about? A 2nd question would have delayed Scotland's inevitable march to independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 What did that latest poll have Yes sitting at? In that particular poll I think it was about 27%. 33% undecided. The only camp that's losing votes is the no camp. Must be worrying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 A billion a year invested in a fund would realise the following amount in 50 years time. £159 b at 4% growth pa. £220 b at 5% growth pa. £308 b at 6% growth pa. £435 b at 7% growth pa. £620 b at 8% growth pa. £888 b at 9% growth pa. £1,280 b at 10% growth pa. I wouldn't mind Scotland seeing if we can do more with our Oil & Gas windfall before it does disappear at some point in the distant future. Norway's fund quadrupled in 8 years from 2005, compound interest is frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why is it proving "problematic" for him? I don't think he gave a monkeys when the referendum was held. Sorry but that's not accurate. He floated the idea of giving powers to hold a legally binding referendum IF it was held in the first half of the Parliament. He didnt get it. He attempted to have an the electoral commision set the question. He didnt get it. He is not in favour of lowering the voting age to include 16 & 17 yr olds. Salmond owned him on this. The only concession was the Devo Max question. A masterstroke by the SNP who never actually endorsed this as an option. They encouraged discussion on it and knowing it was probably the most popular option kept it on the table til the last possible moment. Knowing he could never get it (as this would clearly require the consent of the rUK electorate) he continued with the notion that "all views should be heard". Then Salmond was able to say to the People of Scotland "I tried but they just wouldnt have it - if you want change then you will need to now consider Independence" Cameron got his arse kicked by a far superior politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Sorry but that's not accurate. He floated the idea of giving powers to hold a legally binding referendum IF it was held in the first half of the Parliament. He didnt get it. He attempted to have an the electoral commision set the question. He didnt get it. He is not in favour of lowering the voting age to include 16 & 17 yr olds. Salmond owned him on this. The only concession was the Devo Max question. A masterstroke by the SNP who never actually endorsed this as an option. They encouraged discussion on it and knowing it was probably the most popular option kept it on the table til the last possible moment. Knowing he could never get it (as this would clearly require the consent of the rUK electorate) he continued with the notion that "all views should be heard". Then Salmond was able to say to the People of Scotland "I tried but they just wouldnt have it - if you want change then you will need to now consider Independence" Cameron got his arse kicked by a far superior politician Precisely. The decision not to include a 2nd question could backfire spectacularly for the unionists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Precisely. The decision not to include a 2nd question could backfire spectacularly for the unionists. Yes, it could even after the referendum. If a Yes vote was to marginally win, you could've had Unionist's trying to force another referendum citing most people wanted Devo Max not independence and only got independence by default. But they couldn't even try that now because they were given the opportunity to have it on the ballot and didn't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 In that particular poll I think it was about 27%. 27% eh! Oooft! That's very low... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Precisely. The decision not to include a 2nd question could backfire spectacularly for the unionists. Uh huh. And if No win, who has the decision not to have a 2nd question backfired on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Uh huh. And if No win, who has the decision not to have a 2nd question backfired on? No. The more levers the SG have control over the less blame they can deflect over to Westminster. Independence was inevitable the minute devolution was agreed, decisions made since are only delaying/speeding up the march to independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Uh huh. And if No win, who has the decision not to have a 2nd question backfired on? No. I reckon if change doesnt happen after a no vote we will have another referendum.Carry on thinking Cameron has played a blinder if you like though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 No one. I reckon if change doesnt happen after a no vote we will have another referendum. Riiiight. When? So if No win, Scotland stays in the Union, the Referendum campaign is over, but Cameron hasn't got what he wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The only camp that's losing votes is the no camp. Must be worrying Which polling company was this? That had Yes sitting at 27%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Yes, it could even after the referendum. If a Yes vote was to marginally win, you could've had Unionist's trying to force another referendum citing most people wanted Devo Max not independence and only got independence by default. But they couldn't even try that now because they were given the opportunity to have it on the ballot and didn't take it. The Unionist parties knew as well as the Scottish Government that Devo Max is essentially unworkable as stands. The negotiations for what it would mean, would have taken up pretty much all the air in the referendum campaign and would have won the day. This would have meant fiscal autonomy with Scotland paying in to the Union rather than Westminster deciding how much Scotland gets. This, for Unionism would have been Independence with a bit of cash. The Unionists NEEDED Devo Max off the table ASAP. They attempted to kill it off early and consistently stated it would need to be a yes/no ballot. They insisted that it was only a discussion which could be held after Scotland had agreed to remain in the Union and refused to engage in ANY discussion on Devo Max. They repeatedly informed us that we needed "clarity" on Independence. Any and all talk of Devo Max had to be shut down as quickly as possible, as the longer it went on the more people would be swayed by the idea of the status quo needing replaced or renegotiated. The SNP kept it going for as long as they could without ever making it a preferred option. The longer the conversation on Devo Max went on the more people would feel that change was neccessary. When the Unionists finally managed to kill it the seed had been sown and those who saw Devo Max as a good option where left with the option of change vs no change. It was a briiliant piece of strategic thinking by the SNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 27% eh! Oooft! That's very low... I'd be more worried about the trend of the No vote than where the Yes vote is sitting at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Riiiight. When? So if No win, Scotland stays in the Union, the Referendum campaign is over, but Cameron hasn't got what he wanted? That wasn't your question though was it. If there is a no.vote.it wont be because of Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I'd be more worried about the trend of the No vote than where the Yes vote is sitting at the moment I'm actually beginning to think the pipedream WILL happen next year, it's like having to endure the excitement of 273 Christmas Eve's. My earlier posts on this thread were like "thank fcuk we can get this independence debate over with for another 30 years". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I'd be more worried about the trend of the No vote than where the Yes vote is sitting at the moment So which polling company was it? You said it was just No that was haemorrhaging votes - I just wondered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.