The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

For approx 2 years Neil has tried to brand the snp and its supporters as nazis or fascists or racists.

He appears to think that going with the blood and soil form of words is a clever way to infer that you and I are Nazis.

As England votes more and more towards the right wing, over 50% now voting Tory or UKIP, I think he gets pissed off with our pro European, pro immigration anti nuke party and in particular Sturgeon talking about the type of Scotland she wants to live in ie inclusive and outward looking Hence reducing himself to poisoned dwarf slurs etc.

I now accept that he thinks I believe in independence for Scotland as he thinks I hate my English pals and that I want to get really rich on our rivers of oil while getting a Tory government for the rest of my days.

Oh and of course that I want to starve my kids and neighbours.

[LJS]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, that the SNP are liars with the latest budget. I'#ll take your admission of that as progress.

Show me a government that doesn't spin it's budget figures to suit its own ends.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

More than a wee bit.

The population of the UK has grown significantly since 2010. The population of Scotland hasn't. 

The spending per-head in the UK has reduced (in real terms, after inflation adjustment) significantly in that time. The spending in Scotland has not.

The economic growth in the UK has increased in that time. The economic growth in Scotland has been slower.

All of these are parts of the reasons why Scotland's deficit has fallen while its spending has stayed static, because the whole UK deficit has been reduced and the Scottish numbers have benefitted via that.

This all sounds very plausible and I almost fell for it. But UK population growth has nothing at all to do with GERS figures which is where Chokka's pretty little graph comes from. GERS figures attempt to estimate the revenue raised in Scotland & the money spent in Scotland. Differential poopulatio growth may skew the Barnet dosh but the GERS figures disregard the Barnett dosh. 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

A graph plot of deficit reduction over that period has the line of Scottish deficit follow (stay parallel with) the line of UK deficit - which *proves* (to anyone with a working brain) that Scotland's deficit deduction is strictly-tied to what has been done from Westminster.

Yup we are part of the one country at the  moment - and the bif country makes most of the important decisions so its hardly surprising that the lines are more or less parallel. As far as Scotland is concerned what these lines show is a deficit reduction while spending remains pretty much unchanged. If that can be achieved within the UK why can't it be achieved outwith the UK. (as it happens, I believe we could probably do a bit better over time but that is not the argument I am making here.)

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

You hold out hopes of that being Scotland's salvation, yet it would require 70 years of what you've been falsely calling "austerity" ... which has the laughable situation of someone who slags off 'austerity' seeing austerity as Scotland's salvation from its deficit.

It's only maths, but it's beyond you.

Oh dear! Dear, dear. Where to begin?

You keep quoting 70 years but have provided nothing at all to back that figure up. 

You say I have been falsely calling Austerity  -I haven't -herres the Cambridge dictionary definition of austerity...

" a difficult economic situation caused by  government reducing the amount of money it spends"

 I agree with you - we haven't had austerity - because spending has not been reducing. I know that's tough for you to deal with because you spent a great deal of time arguing elsewhere that the only way to reduce the deficit was to reduce spending but hey I know your man enough to admit when you are wrong.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

If there's anything that's questionable because it's an estimate, it means that the true number could see things worse for Scotland, and not better. Logically it's not an angle via which anything can be dismissed.

That aside, if the fact of estimates change anything of the true numbers, the change will be small. GERS are national accounts to international standards.

It doesn't make the deficit go away, before or after indy.

Up to this point< I have no idea what you are on about.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The deficit only changes post-indy is the spending or revenues change.

This I understand & entirely agree with although it is not the most startling or insightful thing you have ever said because since the deficit is the gap between revenue & spending it's a statement of the bleeding obvious really. Anyway, let's continue.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

If the spending is changing you'll have to tell us all what spending is being cut.

Its not it's staying broadly the same 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The revenues might increase slowly, but they won't instantly magic an extra £9Bn from the air just because Scotland is indy, to cover the deficit gap caused by the extra Barnett funding Scotland has.

You are absolutely right they will not magic £9Bn from the air which is why I made a very specific point of not claiming that they would.  Of course once we are independent our "deficit gap" with the rUK will be of no more relevance than our deficit gap with New Zealand or Micronesia. What will matter is our deficit. And yes it won't magically disappear just because we are Independent.

I know that which is why I haven't claimed it would. 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Scotland's on-shore deficit over-and-above the whole-UK has been constant for more than 30 years.

There's some graphs at chokka which prove this. There's even GERS to Salmond's own methodology which prove this.

Why has Scotland's on-shore deficit over-and-above the whole-UK has been constant for more than 30 years? Because it's the consequence of the extra funding Scotland receives via the Barnett formula.

Again, all very fascinating but look up at the top of the page -  it's the dirty independence question. There will be no gap there will only be the absolute deficit. What a dirty independent Scotland needs to do is worry about its own deficit. we really really don't need to worry about the rUK's deficit or whather yours is bigger than ours or vice versa. the deficit gap will be history. 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

The whole-UK part of Scotland's deficit has fallen.

What does that mean exactly? 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The 'deficit gap' caused by Scotland's extra funding via Barnett - which accounts for 6-7% of Scotland's total deficit (and which would require a 14%-ish cut in spending to address) - has remained constant.

Because the Barnett formula has remained constant in the financial benefit it brings to Scotland.

All entirely irrelevant to an independent Scotland.

 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Your maths is, but the maths needs context - an explanation for the why that reduction has happened.

Its happened because spending has stayed pretty static while revenue has increased.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

As is clear, the reduction started in 2010. As is also clear, cuts in whole-UK spending started in 2010 too.

But not Scottish spending. These are Scottish figures - thats what GERS is.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

A graph plot of the UK deficit and Scottish deficit shows the lines remaining just-about parallel, which shows the deficit gap as about static.

Yup

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That deficit gap is 6 or 7%. It's not reducing by any meaningful extent. It *CAN'T* reduce, without reducing the guaranteed extra funding Scotland has above the UK average.

Well it can, but yeah it probably won't

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

That's how long it would take to work thru the average of small improvement Scotland has had with it's deficit gap over the last 7 years.

this is your 70 years & maybe it would take 70 years to close the deficit gap if we stay in the UK butthis threas is a discussion about us not staying in the UK so we won't care about the deficit gap because it will be totally meaningless. You know the UK has had a pretty shocking deficit gap to Germany for a number of years? It hasn't worried anyone because they are two separate countries. I take it you know that Scotland will be a separate country from the rUK after independence

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

BUT ... that's actually a mathematical anomaly created by the whole-UK deficit reduction, and as soon as whole-UK deficit reduction stops, so does the small improvement.

It's just maths. 

Which you reject here, just as you claiming adding up and taking away works differently after indy is a rejection of maths.

I know a wee bit about maths (I'm no Einsten) but i can extrapolate a graph and I am pretty confident I have not broken any mathematical rules here & interestingly you haven't actually been able to tell me how i have. You have only intoriced the inevitable deficit gap squirrrel

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

And at the same time, the whole-UK surplus would be greater than the Scottish number. Which actually means Scotland has gone backwards in its position against the UK, and it isn't an improvement. You do know that, right?

don't care

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In the real world, the UK (nor Scotland) is going to keep reducing spending, so those suprlusses won't happen.

I think I may have acknowledge d that - I was merely demonstrating the idiocy of your 70 years claim.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

In the real world, Scotland's improvement can only be measured against the whole-UK position, because the two things are formally tied together via the Barnett funding. 

Not when we are independent.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

So everything of the whole-UK-caused reductions can be subtracted from the Scottish reductions, to leave remaining what is solely created in Scotland (or by purely-Scottish circumstances, to put it another way).

What language is this?

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Which is *still* around 6%.

Nothing has improved!!!!

OUr deficit decreases but it is not an imprevement - the only way we can improve is to do better than the UK. I'm so glad I didn't say that

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

That would require Scotland to keep on cutting spending after UK spending cuts have stopped.

So Scotland's deficit haqs decreased year on year without spending cuts but suddenly that will all change 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's impossible via any other means. It's just maths.

Hallelujah we have been achieving the impossible for the past 6 years.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It's 70 years for the deficit gap improvement to work thru - tho *only* if the improvement of the last few years (which went backwards in the last year, in case that passed you by) is average-constant for all of that 70 years. It won't be.

Is that the UK's deficit gap with Germany, Scotland's deficit gap with Venezuala or what?

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

For your 7 years estimate, it would require Scotland to cut at the current tory rates of cutting for whole-UK *AFTER* the tories have stopped cutting. It's just maths.

Have you ever done maths, Neil?

Look at the graph. 

now go & check chokka's figures 

has spending in Scotland been cut over the past 6 years? 

Has the deficit reduced year on year over these 6 years?

What happens to the Scottish deficit in 7 years if you extend the line in the graph?

So tell me, Neil if the Scottish deficit has reduced year on year for the past 6 years without reducing spending, why can't it do so for the next 7 years?

 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Get back to me when Scotland has a plan to return the extra barnett funding, which would be those purely-Scottish cuts - and bigger cuts than the tories have made since 2010.

I am hopeful that Scotland will have a plan to forego the Barnett funding via independence in the not too distant future. i am also confident that whatever deficit Scotland has on independence day can be managed over time. 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Only if you're accepting the mathematical realities, of how westminster cuts benefit the scottish numbers, and of how changes within the UK (but [mostly] outside of Scotland) benefit the Scottish numbers.

Maybe you coudl explain again how these Westminster cuts are benefiting the Scottish numbers because I have entirely missed that bit.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Normally you say Scotland doesn't have the levers to change anything, but suddenly right here you're trying to pretend that Scotland is changing everything and Westminster are changing nothing.

I am getting a bit fed up explaining to you that my point is not based on who is responsible for deficit reduction but merely that it has happened & I see no particular reason why it can't continue to happen.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

And if we did, that 70 years would prove you wrong, just as maths does today.

Neil, I'm pretty sure 70 years would prove us both wrong which is why I am not making predictions for 70 years.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Salmond laid out in the indy white paper what he said was the economic benefit of being a small country.

By his own estimates, it would take 120 years to bridge the deficit gap via extra growth.

That's nothing made up by me, that's something made up by Salmond.

When you call your own indy leaders liars - as you do here, and as you do with GERS - all substance for indy has gone.

you made up words that Salmond didn't say. When you say someone says something its a lie if they didn't say it. you think its dead clever and you do it all the time. Frankly I'd be embarrassed if I were you.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Yep. When the tories stop reducing it.

The next GERS or the one after will show a slow-down in reduction if not a reversal of reduction. 

That's a mathematical certainty, as a result of a lesser whole-UK reduction in the deficit via the extra spending that Hammond has announced.

(I'm not entirely sure which year(s) that extra spending falls within, which is why I've not committed to a fixed year for when it will show in within GERS).

Mathematical relationships are mathematical relationships.

This is entirely possible and indeed if the pre-Brexit forecasts of armageddon that you endorsed were to come true, it would be pretty bloody certain but if Scotland's deficit reduction grinds to a halt because of the UK Tories' willingness to sacrifice the UK economy to keep their party together, I have to say, I would see that as just another reason to get out of the UK.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

PMSL  ... I've said nothing of the sort.

Scotland can reduce its deficit tomorrow if it wants to. It's fuck all to do with Westminster whether it keeps on reducing.

All Scotland has to do is send back the Barnett money, which ensures that Scotland will always have a 6%-ish deficit gap compared to whole-UK for all the while it's accepted.

Your confusing the deficit gap with the deficit again.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

Oh FFS.

Westminster politicians give so much of the fuck they help create it by sending Scotland more money than its equal share.

Westminster politicians help create the deficit. You said it. not me.

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

They don't create it to be nasty to Scotland, tho, they create it because of Scottish demands for it.

(Westminster has been trying to reduce the amount to something fairer for at least 50 years,

really? they started trying to reduce it 12 years before it was invented? Can you point me to some of these attempts to reduce it (i'll let you off with the first 12 years of your 50. 

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but Scotland won't have it. It's the very reason the Barnett formula exists in the first place, as a first step of reduction from the better-funded system it replaced.)

Does it ever  occur to you that the Barnett formula coming into being coincided roughly with North Sea oil coming on stream & the rise of Scottish nationalism? Do you think there might be a link?

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I wish some people who didn't give a flying fuck about me sent me money they didn't have to. I've like some of that nastiness, just as you would.

When your argument is so very weak that you're calling benefit to Scotland from Westminster an evil thing, you only have brain-dead.

We did reasonably well without gratuitous insults ... I suppose it was too good to last.

 

Night night.

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

Hey, Neil...

 

"What is "Scotland is a country" apart from a reference to Scottish soil and the historical ethnic - bloodlines - that created it?"

this is something you said in another thread but is clearly more appropriate here so I'll make my point here.

 

I'd really like to know what you mean by ...

"the historical ethnic - bloodlines "

I was under the impression that we are a mongrel race (I use the term race very loosely) just as much as you guys down south are. You know, a bit of pict, a dash of Briton, a smidgen of Celt, some Viking....I could go on. Not quite sure where this fits in with your blood & soil malarkey. 

Please help me out, Neil.

Once you've cleared that up, can you help me with the soil bit?

I thought our soil was pretty much like everyone else's but apparently not. According to you our "Scottish soil" was created by these "historical ethnic bloodlines" which I'm hoping you will now have enlightened me about.

When I find these "historical ethnic bloodlines", can I get them to create some soil for me? And can I choose what sort of soil I'd like.

Of course, alternatively you could withdraw your ridiculous Nazi slurs & engage in adult debate.

Your call, matey.

 

Mongrel or not, peoples everywhere since the dawn of time have been invoking a self-serving tribalism which today's form is called nationalism, where those inside a border are considered exceptional and those outside the cause of all problems inside.

Ancient Scotland was tribal. Ancient Scotland was killed off 300+ years ago. You wish its re-establishment on those same tribal borders.

You don't start with the idea of indy and apply to the area of those that want it. You start with the idea of Scotland and then say Scots will do a more exceptional job than 'outsiders'.

(while ignoring the fact that the 'outsiders' have often been Scots and nothing exceptional has happened, and even stuff like Scots deserting Labour when Labour no longer had Scots at the top).

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Show me a government that doesn't spin it's budget figures to suit its own ends.

there's spin, and then there's 100% lie. 

This is the SNP giving a 100% lie.

And you give them a free pass.

'nough said. I'm too busy for the rest of your laughable bollocks.

[LJS]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's spin, and then there's 100% lie. 

This is the SNP giving a 100% lie.

And you give them a free pass.

'nough said. I'm too busy for the rest of your laughable bollocks.

my laughable bollocks are bigger than yours!

You do realise if I was too busy to reply to you, you would take that as me conceding I was wrong...

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, LJS said:

my laughable bollocks are bigger than yours!

You do realise if I was too busy to reply to you, you would take that as me conceding I was wrong...

Not in this case.

You've already been making posts on the basis of them lying, with some of what you've posted from chokka.

Never mind, eh? 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not in this case.

You've already been making posts on the basis of them lying, with some of what you've posted from chokka.

Never mind, eh? 

Just you wait until the tanks roll into Berwick. You dirty englischer schwein.

[LJS]

Neil, you may find this of interest...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fraserofallander.org/2017/01/17/has-the-scottish-budget-increased-or-decreased-since-201011/amp/?client=ms-android-htc-rev

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, LJS said:

Neil, you may find this of interest...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fraserofallander.org/2017/01/17/has-the-scottish-budget-increased-or-decreased-since-201011/amp/?client=ms-android-htc-rev

are you able to tell me what a "budget" details, LJS?

Is it: the amount of money sent to Scotland by Westminster?

Or is it the amount the Scottish Govt is going to spend?

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

are you able to tell me what a "budget" details, LJS?

Is it: the amount of money sent to Scotland by Westminster?

Or is it the amount the Scottish Govt is going to spend?

 

I know exactly what a budget details. I thought this was quite a useful breakdown of the different bits & bobs associated with th Scottish budget.

I thought you would have worked out that I post things sometimes because I think they contain useful or interesting info. This was an example. You will have noted that I didn't make any particular point out of it.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

I know exactly what a budget details. I thought this was quite a useful breakdown of the different bits & bobs associated with th Scottish budget.

I thought you would have worked out that I post things sometimes because I think they contain useful or interesting info. This was an example. You will have noted that I didn't make any particular point out of it.

So when your senior ministers lie to your parliament, is that 'the better politics' you used to claim for Scotland?

What's astounding, yet again, is how the free passes are being handed round by so many about major deception from the heart of govt.

But this one is still running, and people in Scotland are waking up to it. Much like how many people who've been happy til now to vote SNP 'for Scotland' but without supporting indy are now starting to feel used, this budget lie is chipping away at SNP support too.

As I've mentioned already, I reckon the May elections up there will be interesting, with them not working out in quite the way so many snippers are currently predicting.

(just to repeat, I'm not saying they'll bomb, but I don't think it's going to be the clean up some are saying).

I don't think Sturgeon will progress anything towards another indyref before May, to use that vote to gauge how things stand. It's going to be interesting.

Edited January 27, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

On 26/01/2017 at 7:45 AM, eFestivals said:

Not in this case.

You've already been making posts on the basis of them lying, with some of what you've posted from chokka.

Never mind, eh? 

So Chokka was lying? Cos all the figures I have used are his

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

So Chokka was lying? Cos all the figures I have used are his

No, I was saying that your use of chokka was you accepting chokka's numbers.

Which is you rejecting the SNP claims of the budget having been cut.

Which is you knowing that the SNP are lying to the Scottish people, to try and con them into something (I wonder what? ) with lies.

Given what that thing is, and the consequences back onto the people who are being lied to if they get taken in by the lie, doesn't it concern you that the SNP are taking the same lying-c**t angle as UKIP just used, that you've been condemning?

[LJS]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

So when your senior ministers lie to your parliament, is that 'the better politics' you used to claim for Scotland?

What the report I linked to shows is that there are various elements to the Scottish budget not all of which are under the control of the Scottish Government. There are various ways to present that information   depending on the outcome you want. the outcome Chokka wants i s to demonstrate that the Scottish budget has not been cut and the SNP are liars so he used one set of figures. The SNP wanted to show that they are bravely soldiering on in the face of swingeing cuts from the evil Tories so they used another set of figures & flung a bit of projection into it. Its not lying but it is definitely spinning like all politicians do. Had I claimed some sort of moral superiority for Scottish politicians , I woudl have some explaining to do. I haven't so I don't. 

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

What's astounding, yet again, is how the free passes are being handed round by so many about major deception from the heart of govt.

No free passed from me - they are spinning the figures as every government in livig memory has.

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But this one is still running, and people in Scotland are waking up to it.

Are they?

 

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Much like how many people who've been happy til now to vote SNP 'for Scotland' but without supporting indy are now starting to feel used, this budget lie is chipping away at SNP support too.

You may be right but I am not aware of any evidence to that effect. Is ti something you read BTL in the daily mail?

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As I've mentioned already, I reckon the May elections up there will be interesting, with them not working out in quite the way so many snippers are currently predicting.

I certainly think snippers would be wise not to be too confident. SNP support in local elections has generally lagged behind their national support. After getting 45%^ of the vote at Holyrood, they only got 32% at the 2012 local elections. (these are not exact comparisons due to different voting systems.) So if the get, say 40% this time, its hard to know whether to see that as progress or decline.

 

What is entirely predictable is that it would be trumpeted as a disaster by most of the media & the other parties ... and you. You may wish to cut out & keep this post to avoid you embarrassing yourself in a few months.

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(just to repeat, I'm not saying they'll bomb, but I don't think it's going to be the clean up some are saying).

I agree 

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't think Sturgeon will progress anything towards another indyref before May, to use that vote to gauge how things stand. It's going to be interesting.

I don't think she is daft enough to read too much into local election results for the reasons given above.

[LJS]

 

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Which is you rejecting the SNP claims of the budget having been cut.

Which is you knowing that the SNP are lying to the Scottish people, to try and con them into something (I wonder what? ) with lies.

Chokka's numbers that I have used  - for my now famous 7 (not 70) year projection, were based on GERS which as you will be aware are an entirely different thing from Teh Holyrood budget.

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Given what that thing is, and the consequences back onto the people who are being lied to if they get taken in by the lie, doesn't it concern you that the SNP are taking the same lying-c**t angle as UKIP just used, that you've been condemning?

I think I've just covered that above.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, LJS said:

Are they?

yep. You want to try a bit of reading around. There's a changed mood, not huge, but still perceptible.

 

9 minutes ago, LJS said:

You may be right but I am not aware of any evidence to that effect. Is ti something you read BTL in the daily mail?

Nope, mostly Scottish newspapers. There's a changed mood, not huge, but still perceptible.

10 minutes ago, LJS said:

What is entirely predictable is that it would be trumpeted as a disaster by most of the media & the other parties ... and you. You may wish to cut out & keep this post to avoid you embarrassing yourself in a few months.

Not me, unless I were (I don't) replying to those who are claiming big things for the locals. I simply don't know enough about politics in Scotland at ward level.

The only thing which might have me comment is if they don't win Glasgow, cos just about everyone seems to accept they'll walk it there.

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

I don't think she is daft enough to read too much into local election results for the reasons given above.

they can never tell the whole story for an indyref, but they're still an indicator of how things would be going. I reckon they'd be of no less interest than an opinion poll.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

I think I've just covered that above.

Hmmm. Some lies are more meaningful than other lies.

Personally I see indy (if it were won) turning out badly both because of the (fuck all) money, but also because it's only likely to get taken over the line via the standard sorts of lies about the money. 

If you think the UK has been divided by brexit, I reckon iScotland would be in a much worse state, and the birth of the nation will be tainted forever and taint everything of how that nation operates.

From where I'm sat that screams a glorious and eternal disaster.

 

 

[eFestivals]

I said there was a perceptible changed mood, and this piece in the guardian seems to bear that out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/shift-scottish-independence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act

Basically, it says (from opinion polling) that some 'no'/'remain' voters now support indy, but a greater number of yes/leave voters have jumped the other way, and no longer support indie.

(note: I'm aware that it's working from polls done before xmas, and it's possible a few minds have changed again since then).

The mood change I've picked up on has been hostility towards the SNP from people who'd previously supported indy, who feel their leave vote has been hi-jacked by the SNP. You can argue if they're perhaps being daft or not, but the fact is that's how they feel.

My own perception has been that there's a lot more of them than no/remain voters who'd now vote yes, tho I guess the circumstances around everything is likely to mean these types feel less need to be vocal about it, so I'm happy to accept the numbers of each is fairly similar as the Guardian piece suggests.

One thing to note tho: if those yes/leave voters stayed loyal to indy, the number of changed minds from no/remain only gets support for indie to just about 50/50, rather than any significant lead - and because they're obviously conflicted here, they're likely to be softer in their support and so more likely to swap back to no during a campaign.

 

[LJS]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I said there was a perceptible changed mood, and this piece in the guardian seems to bear that out.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/shift-scottish-independence-yougov-nicola-sturgeon-balancing-act

Basically, it says (from opinion polling) that some 'no'/'remain' voters now support indy, but a greater number of yes/leave voters have jumped the other way, and no longer support indie.

(note: I'm aware that it's working from polls done before xmas, and it's possible a few minds have changed again since then).

The mood change I've picked up on has been hostility towards the SNP from people who'd previously supported indy, who feel their leave vote has been hi-jacked by the SNP. You can argue if they're perhaps being daft or not, but the fact is that's how they feel.

My own perception has been that there's a lot more of them than no/remain voters who'd now vote yes, tho I guess the circumstances around everything is likely to mean these types feel less need to be vocal about it, so I'm happy to accept the numbers of each is fairly similar as the Guardian piece suggests.

One thing to note tho: if those yes/leave voters stayed loyal to indy, the number of changed minds from no/remain only gets support for indie to just about 50/50, rather than any significant lead - and because they're obviously conflicted here, they're likely to be softer in their support and so more likely to swap back to no during a campaign.

 

So your piece to support a change in mood shows no evidence of a change of mood & says any people who have changed their minds in one direction have been balances by those who have gone the other way. I genuinely have no idea if there is likely to have been any significant change in past 6 weeks or so since the last poll was done. The overwhelming majority of voters don't frequent the places where you pick up opinions so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on what you read there - by either side.

What the article does show is that people are open to changing their mind. The trick (for either side) is to get folk to change to their side without just as many going in the other direction (&yes I know this applies much more to the yes side as they absolutely have to change some noes to yes)

[eFestivals]

17 hours ago, LJS said:

So your piece to support a change in mood shows no evidence of a change of mood & says any people who have changed their minds in one direction have been balances by those who have gone the other way.

That piece points out that some who previously supported indy are now rejecting it.

That's a changed mood, the changed mood I referred to. It's a changed mood that can be seen in most places indy is discussed (probably not at WoS, then, cos that's mostly a nodding dog).

What was too difficult for you about that?

17 hours ago, LJS said:

The overwhelming majority of voters don't frequent the places where you pick up opinions so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on what you read there - by either side.

The overwhelming majority of opinions are expressed where I read.

I don't necessarily place much emphasis on what I read, but I placed enough emphasis on it to say there's a noticeable changed mood, where some feel abused by what the SNP are doing.

Some might even say that what I noticed is borne out by what that article says with its new revelation of what polling is showing - tho that would take acceptance of facts as facts, of words as words, as well as observation and consideration to say it before that article had done.

17 hours ago, LJS said:

What the article does show is that people are open to changing their mind. The trick (for either side) is to get folk to change to their side without just as many going in the other direction (&yes I know this applies much more to the yes side as they absolutely have to change some noes to yes)

It shows that a small proportion are open to changing their minds, but in both directions rather than the one direction that the "indy is inevitable" meme claims ... tho I've got to say, that "inevitable" claim isn't one I'm seeing very much nowadays either, when it used to be constant.

It also shows that a greater number have moved against indy than for it. The difference might be minimal (I'm not sure its fully detailed in that article, can't be bothered to re-read), but it's still a bigger movement against indy than for it.

It shouldn't be forgotten, either, that the indy question is a mature debate already, where everyone has already made their considerations and fixed on one side or the other. That makes it quite different to 2014 where everything was to play for - tho even there it should be noted that the gap of difference in support moved very little over the 2 years of campaigning, and what instead happened was that the undecided's split pretty much evenly for each side.

There's little mind changing happened over 5 years, and there's little mind changing now too. It doesn't look good for an indy victory.

Edited January 29, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

On 09/01/2017 at 9:39 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Turns out the charade was only in your head . No need to send your " note " North at the moment. NS has other business to be getting on with for now.

This from earlier today.... the Tories will be back to an empty campaign drawing board for the local elections !

Ms Sturgeon said: "There is not going to be an independence referendum in 2017, I don't think there is anybody who thinks that is the case."

 

Wrong !

Mentioned this before but couldn`t find an example of a leaflet online.

Got another one today. 

Glossy 1 pager with our man in a pretty decent looking suit pictured with Ruth D also looking smart in blue suit. Both proudly sporting the Union Jack lapel page. Front page their pic, which you would expect, but instead of some words on how the Tories will look to shape our future or perhaps some key policy type issues that they think might interest me on local issues they go with only these words but in caps and bold :

" Send a message to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP that you don`t want a second independence vote "

That`s it. 

Alongside the fella`s name and of course the new branding - Scottish Conservative and Unionist.

I may write to him and suggest that if he had dropped the font or went without the capital letters he may have been able to fit " proud " in before Unionist.

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

" Send a message to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP that you don`t want a second independence vote "

That`s it. 

yup, that's it for about 70% of people in Scotland. What have you missed?

They want govt, not pointless distractions.

There's too much rain? The answer is indy.
There's not enough rain? The answer is indy.
Etc, etc, etc.

Sturgeon in a nutshell.

Edited January 30, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Oh dear.

Quote

The SNP is close to ditching one of its longest-held principles for Scottish independence — full membership of the European Union.

The Times has learnt that senior party figures want to adopt a Norway-style model in which an independent Scotland would stay inside the single market, but outside the EU, after Brexit.

This, they believe, would allow Scotland to retain all the benefits of the European single market while continuing to trade within the UK as it does now.

A poll published yesterday found that more than a third of Yes voters from 2014 want to stay outside the EU and SNP strategists believe this new approach would keep these voters behind their independence cause.

(from The Times)

I guess that's going to be the excuse for not holding an indyref.

But even if they go ahead, the manifesto pledge would cease to be valid, given that the SNP are now (supposedly) all-for-brexit.

It's the SNP desperately trying to find an angle that'll stick.

I reckon, tho, they'll have dug themselves into even more shit there, cos the EU is not going to accept an iScotland as a member of the EEA of it has a wide open border with rUK which gives rUK a backdoor into the EU - cos rUK's economy is bigger than the combined economy of 18 EU members.

Edited January 30, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

8 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Oh dear.

(from The Times)

I guess that's going to be the excuse for not holding an indyref.

Either that or it's made up?

Quote

But even if they go ahead, the manifesto pledge would cease to be valid, given that the SNP are now (supposedly) all-for-brexit.

Even if that is true - it is hardly "all for brexit" and anyway the manifesto pledge was for   the right to hold a referendum if there was "significant and material"  change in circumstances. There has been. so the pledge is valid.

Quote

It's the SNP desperately trying to find an angle that'll stick.

or the SNP examining other options? You say tomato.

Quote

I reckon, tho, they'll have dug themselves into even more shit there,

You don't say!! its not like you.

Quote

cos the EU is not going to accept an iScotland as a member of the EEA of it has a wide open border with rUK which gives rUK a backdoor into the EU - cos rUK's economy is bigger than the combined economy of 18 EU members.

A spectacularly irrelevant statistic. 

 

here's some poll results at last, to support your view that support for Indy is crumbling

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W7181w9tablesforpublication300117.pdf

except they don't: showing a pretty typical 54/46 lead for No.

Ach well, next month maybe.

Edited January 30, 2017 by LJS

[LJS]

This is allegedly from a panelbase poll currently being conducted.

 

I wonder if we'll see the results ... Car eto speculate on the % for each question, Neil?

Of course if it being conducted on behalf of someone with a vested interest in the INdy question, we may not see hte results if they don't give hte answers they are looking for. 

I did see the Bishop of Bath saying recently he would be polling soon....

 

 

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, LJS said:

Either that or it's made up?

Circumstances suggest it isn't.

Sturgeon knows she's not going to win the argument that protecting 15% of exports and adding barriers to 65% of exports is a good thing.

 

Quote

Even if that is true - it is hardly "all for brexit" and anyway the manifesto pledge was for   the right to hold a referendum if there was "significant and material"  change in circumstances. There has been. so the pledge is valid.

You quoted the pledge recently, and that pledge was about "if the UK left the EU".

Which is such a nasty thing to do to Scotland that Scotland wants to do it too....?

 

10 hours ago, LJS said:

or the SNP examining other options? You say tomato.

yep, examining other options in the hope they can find one which will stick.

FFS.

10 hours ago, LJS said:

A spectacularly irrelevant statistic. 

As ever, you reject all inconvenient facts.

The EU is not going to give the UK an open backdoor into the single market via Scotland. If you think they will you're the perfect subject for Sturgeon's spin.

Its sad that you refuse to engage your brain.

10 hours ago, LJS said:

here's some poll results at last, to support your view that support for Indy is crumbling

http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls/W7181w9tablesforpublication300117.pdf

except they don't: showing a pretty typical 54/46 lead for No.

Ach well, next month maybe.

A poll that meets your criteria of ignoring other polls. Very well done.

The trend - for over 2 years now - is only downwards. That trend is from the average of the previous 6 polls, btw, just in case you need to understand the facts.

And you seem to have forgotten that Scotland would be so outraged by a winning vote for brexit that support for indy would soar. What's happened to that?