Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond says there are no NO voters, just deferred YES

SystemSystem Posts: 11,688
edited September 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Alex Salmond says there are no NO voters, just deferred YES ones

Given the polls there are three things that YES/Salmond have to do: Ensure there’s a maximum turnout amongst those currently saying YES; try to win over some switchers, and endeavour to ensure lower turnout levels amongst those inclined to NO.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    First!
  • Options
    '...and endeavour to ensure lower turnout levels amongst those inclined to NO.'

    Sounds distinctly sinister.
  • Options
    Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    edited September 2014
    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    I have always had the feeling that this was more about Salmond wanting more power, than his wish to see an independent Scotland prosper. They egotistical way he conducts himself on occasions must put some people off.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931
    Yes now 7/2 on Betfair
  • Options
    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).
  • Options

    '...and endeavour to ensure lower turnout levels amongst those inclined to NO.'

    Sounds distinctly sinister.

    Didn't we have a "No" poster on here last night boasting how the business he runs actively discriminates against "Yes" supporters?

  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,801
    FPT

    Re BBC demos in Glasgow, they've been having them fairly regularly for some weeks/months no. Not news according to the media, though the numbers were not trivial.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,801

    '...and endeavour to ensure lower turnout levels amongst those inclined to NO.'

    Sounds distinctly sinister.

    That's OGH speaking (as part of a common sense analysis of the options), not Mr Salmond.

    Hasn't the equivalent been part of the No campaign strategy, in any case, to discourage Yes voters by how resistance is futile to the huge No leads?


  • Options
    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Re BBC demos in Glasgow, they've been having them fairly regularly for some weeks/months no. Not news according to the media, though the numbers were not trivial.

    They want to be supporting UKIP if they really want to see some real media bias. Where are the daily updates of off-message tweets from years ago? Where is the constant smearing of their leader and his business dealings? Where is the extensive reporting of everyone in the SNP with a shady past, and the ignoring of criminal activity on the part of BT parties? How has a party that wants to break up the country got more credibility and a better platform than a party that simply wants to leave an international association we didn't even join until the 70s? 'Whining Jessies' seems to spring to mind.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    isam said:

    Yes now 7/2 on Betfair

    Also, seeing some bookies move no to 1/5 from 1/3-1/4.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    Anyone think Opinium with there 1 single poll may end up being the most accurate pollster?

    The way everything had gone, I for one, wouldn't be surprised!
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I said the same a while ago.. got caned for it on here by a few..

    The suggestion was the victims were drugged up to the eyeballs, had become accustomed to fake executions or were threatened with torture if they tried to run.

    All are possible I suppose

    There is an old joke about this, but now is probably not the time
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited September 2014
    Swiss_Bob said:

    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
  • Options
    SeanT said:


    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    If the 97% registration figure is right then between them the campaigns have managed to sign up pretty much everyone: Alzheimer sufferers, people hiding from their psycho ex-girlfriends, people in comas and people trapped down wells. They couldn't have done that unless _both_ sides had high motivation and seriously efficient organizations.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931
    edited September 2014
    People who where teenagers in the late 80s.. there is a Cricket team in the Champs League t20 called "S.Express"!

    Remember that song?

    I had to write a local paper in English at school at the time and thought I was oh so trendy by calling it "Essex Press"

  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    "Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet." ~ Reagan.

    Didn't work very well for him...
  • Options

    If it's a Yes, then Cameron may resign, or he may not for the reasons that have been discussed.

    If it's a No, then Salmond is finished as a politician; the generational opportunity will be over.

    Therefore Salmond needs this more than Cameron and will use any trick, persuasion, or other means to win this vote.

  • Options
    I am not sure Salmond should go to the Ryder Cup in Gleneagles - or at least if he does he should keep a pretty low profile.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    john Jones UKIP ‏@jlj21964 32m
    Rotherham Pig Shit - An Issue of Culture: http://youtu.be/QlNAecgJbro
  • Options
    GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323

    SeanT said:


    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    If the 97% registration figure is right then between them the campaigns have managed to sign up pretty much everyone: Alzheimer sufferers, people hiding from their psycho ex-girlfriends, people in comas and people trapped down wells. They couldn't have done that unless _both_ sides had high motivation and seriously efficient organizations.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11094592/Concern-as-child-aged-three-registered-to-vote-in-referendum.html

    Hmm.
  • Options
    isam said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I said the same a while ago.. got caned for it on here by a few..

    The suggestion was the victims were drugged up to the eyeballs, had become accustomed to fake executions or were threatened with torture if they tried to run.

    All are possible I suppose

    There is an old joke about this, but now is probably not the time
    I am calling these as 'fakes' at least in the sense that they are not wholly what they seem. They seem to have unsubtle propaganda written all over them. And I am calling our efforts against ISIS as 100% tokenistic, and actually aimed not at averting a humanitarian crisis, but in achieving (US/'Western') strategic geopolitical aims in the region, namely the break up of Iraq, and the unseating of Assad in Syria.

    If people want to have a go at me on that basis, be my guest. But inform yourself about the wider context first.
  • Options
    Neil said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
    Once you've voted 'Yes' you can freely ignore Westminster legislation.
  • Options
    No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,825
    edited September 2014
    A re-run of the "Big Debate" (Sturgeon, Galloway etc.) just starting on BBC Parliament if any-one with an open mind (as if) wants to catch it.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931
    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    If people want to have a go at me on that basis, be my guest. But inform yourself about the wider context first.

    How many hours of RT should we watch to qualify as informed?
  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244

    SeanT said:


    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    If the 97% registration figure is right then between them the campaigns have managed to sign up pretty much everyone: Alzheimer sufferers, people hiding from their psycho ex-girlfriends, people in comas and people trapped down wells. They couldn't have done that unless _both_ sides had high motivation and seriously efficient organizations.
    For Christ's sake will people stop going on about this "97%" figure as if it has any fundamentally statistical meaning? The demoninator of this figure is an ESTIMATE of the eligible voter population of Scotland. An estimate, by the way, which makes no adjustment for potential (temporary) population shifts by individuals looking to have a vote in the referendum ("no" voters?). In other words it is entirely possible that the registration figure could have been greater than 100%. What would people have been saying then?
  • Options
    EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Re BBC demos in Glasgow, they've been having them fairly regularly for some weeks/months no. Not news according to the media, though the numbers were not trivial.

    Judging from the pictures on Twitter, there appear to be thousands of YES supporting protestors outside the BBC HQ in Glasgow. Some are carrying large banners calling for Nick Robinson to be sacked. They are apparently chanting "Stick your license fee up your arse".

    Will be interesting to see who or what the public service broadcaster will be in an Indy Scotland if YES wins.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Neil said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
    Once you've voted 'Yes' you can freely ignore Westminster legislation.
    I cant quite see that standing up to scrutiny by revenue officers.

  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,801

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Re BBC demos in Glasgow, they've been having them fairly regularly for some weeks/months no. Not news according to the media, though the numbers were not trivial.

    Judging from the pictures on Twitter, there appear to be thousands of YES supporting protestors outside the BBC HQ in Glasgow. Some are carrying large banners calling for Nick Robinson to be sacked. They are apparently chanting "Stick your license fee up your arse".

    Will be interesting to see who or what the public service broadcaster will be in an Indy Scotland if YES wins.
    I gather they were also chanting (in an apparent reference to the BBC's coverage, or at least its reported understatement, of past demos) something like "Where are your cameras?".

    It was certainly very striking that the BBC closed down almost all comment on its Scottish politics stories on its website very early on in the current parliamentary term (even before the Edinburgh Agreement if I recall rightly, and it can't have been the quality of debate as it was considerably better than the average newspaper, though not so well informed on specialist issues as PB often is).

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I am not sure Salmond should go to the Ryder Cup in Gleneagles - or at least if he does he should keep a pretty low profile.

    Scotland( formerly team Europe) have won 100-0 says the great leader....

    This BBC protest is very sinister.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    That 90 grand at 1.28 has slowly been draining, now it's being anhialated, from 55 grand available to 19k.

    I smell a big price movement coming up.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    I can't see how they could have been in the can, as the 'messages' that they say seem to be tailored to the time of release?

    This blog post (caveats apply -it's an excitable peice done by a non-journalist on a Syrian blog) raises some interesting points: http://friendsofsyria.co/2014/09/11/fake-fake-fake-lies-obama-will-do-anything-to-justify-invading-syria/
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    I can't see how they could have been in the can, as the 'messages' that they say seem to be tailored to the time of release?

    This blog post (caveats apply -it's an excitable peice done by a non-journalist on a Syrian blog) raises some interesting points: http://friendsofsyria.co/2014/09/11/fake-fake-fake-lies-obama-will-do-anything-to-justify-invading-syria/
    That is some serious tin foil hattery.
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited September 2014
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
    All three parties have promised immediate moves to Devomax - Home Rule! - as soon as Scots vote NO (presuming they do). It will become morally impossible for Scots MPs to vote on English legislation, even if they are Labour and therefore have no morals.

    Added to that is the likelihood that the Tories will, if it is a NO, immediately bring in legislation disbarring Scots MPs from many English issues, as and when Devomax goes through. This is mentioned in today's Sunday Times.

    Ed Miliband will be a brave man if he tries to oppose this. He will earn the wrath of the English electorate. And lose in 2015.
    How can you bar Scottish MPs from voting? Does the House of Commons even have the constitutional right to legislate against people who have been elected by the people? If so, what would theoretically be stopping any governing party passing a law which says no Opposition MPs are allowed to vote? What happens if those Scottish MPs just show up and vote anyway on all English matters and refuse to accept that the law banning them has any legitimacy? It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    Neil said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    SeanT said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Am I missing something?

    97% of the electorate are going to vote. Council estates have been swept to ensure that people vote. Those people according to the polls will vote yes.

    Although now I've looked at the odds I see I'm in profit 2 hours after making the bet, I guess it is getting through.

    Freedom! for England.

    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    Against that there is the likelihood of some wobbly YES voters losing their nerve at the end, in the booth, when there is no one there to bully/encourage them.

    So so hard to predict.

    OFFtopic (slightly), what happens to Scottish MEPs on Friday after a YES? I guess they will stay in Strasbourg, but will they vote on matters particularly affecting FUK/England? Will they do what their fellow FUK MEPs do, or start voting from a strictly Scots perspective?

    And what about after indy? Presumably they will then be expelled, as Scotland leaves the EU and then strives to reapply, but Strasbourg will have to enact special legislation to do this.

    Bit of a headache for Eurocrats here, too.
    If they vote 'Yes' that should be the end of Scots MPs at Westminster, immediately.
    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.
    All three parties have promised immediate moves to Devomax - Home Rule! - as soon as Scots vote NO (presuming they do). It will become morally impossible for Scots MPs to vote on English legislation, even if they are Labour and therefore have no morals.

    Added to that is the likelihood that the Tories will, if it is a NO, immediately bring in legislation disbarring Scots MPs from many English issues, as and when Devomax goes through. This is mentioned in today's Sunday Times.

    Ed Miliband will be a brave man if he tries to oppose this. He will earn the wrath of the English electorate. And lose in 2015.
    He loses both ways. Even if he has the most MPs Labour after the GE will most likely be defeated on their more lunatic legislation without Scots MPs.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    TGOHF said:

    I am not sure Salmond should go to the Ryder Cup in Gleneagles - or at least if he does he should keep a pretty low profile.

    Scotland( formerly team Europe) have won 100-0 says the great leader....

    This BBC protest is very sinister.
    It is. Not a good look for Yes.
  • Options
    Neil said:


    If people want to have a go at me on that basis, be my guest. But inform yourself about the wider context first.

    How many hours of RT should we watch to qualify as informed?
    Pass, I don't watch RT. I do browse the website -slightly less than I do the DT. I treat both with scepticism. But I do expect you to bring something more to the table to explain our continued obsession with the Assad regime (the only one actually taking any effective action against ISIS and its fellow Islamist groups), and our failure to take the most basic steps to undermine ISIS. There is a bigger geopolitical battle at play here -you may firmly believe that the US and its sphere is on the side of the angels, by all means do so, but to even deny it exists is simply infantile.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited September 2014
    Neil said:

    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.

    On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government, such as (for example) HS2, new airport capacity, fracking, planning policy, immigration policy, the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU, and negotiations with Scotland on their exit? Not to mention the existing scandal of the West Lothian Question in relation to the NHS and Education.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Krugman has a challenger

    "Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland.
    Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid".
    In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    That 90 grand at 1.28 has slowly been draining, now it's being anhialated, from 55 grand available to 19k.

    I smell a big price movement coming up.

    Yummy. My already green book is about to go from coyly pretty to stunningly beautiful.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    BanTheBBC ‏@BanTheBBC 58m
    BBC not covering Scottish anti-BBC protest, but China TV is haha WATCH: http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/BBCBiasV
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    saddened said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    I can't see how they could have been in the can, as the 'messages' that they say seem to be tailored to the time of release?

    This blog post (caveats apply -it's an excitable peice done by a non-journalist on a Syrian blog) raises some interesting points: http://friendsofsyria.co/2014/09/11/fake-fake-fake-lies-obama-will-do-anything-to-justify-invading-syria/
    That is some serious tin foil hattery.
    Consider yourself informed.

  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244
    edited September 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    Krugman has a challenger

    "Leading economist Joseph Stiglitz has said there is "little basis" for "fear-mongering" over the economy of an independent Scotland.
    Mr Stiglitz countered the view of fellow Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who recently said in the New York Times that Scotland would face "huge risks" if it voted for independence and told Scots to "be very afraid".
    In an article published in the Sunday Herald and the Scotsman Mr Stiglitz said that while there would be risks in the event of a "Yes" vote, the risks of Scotland remaining in the union and the UK leaving the EU would be "significantly greater".

    I don't get the logic here. How can a risk of a yes vote (which guarantees leaving the EU) be less than the risk of a "no" vote and possibly leaving the EU?
  • Options

    Carnyx said:

    FPT

    Re BBC demos in Glasgow, they've been having them fairly regularly for some weeks/months no. Not news according to the media, though the numbers were not trivial.

    Judging from the pictures on Twitter, there appear to be thousands of YES supporting protestors outside the BBC HQ in Glasgow. Some are carrying large banners calling for Nick Robinson to be sacked. They are apparently chanting "Stick your license fee up your arse".

    Will be interesting to see who or what the public service broadcaster will be in an Indy Scotland if YES wins.

    How dare Nick Robinson ask tricky questions and report things in a way that the Yes side does not like?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,466
    edited September 2014
    saddened said:



    That is some serious tin foil hattery.

    To you, yes. On the streets of Syria, it's simply fact.
  • Options

    Neil said:

    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.

    On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government, such as (for example) HS2, new airport capacity, fracking, planning policy, immigration policy, the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU, and negotiations with Scotland on their exit? Not to mention the existing scandal of the West Lothian Question in relation to the NHS and Education.
    How can 59 Scottish MPs over-rule 500+ English MPs?

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931
    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
  • Options
    SeanT said:

    I predict it will be as bad as RTE, and everyone will watch BBC, ITV and American imports.

    ITV? They don't even show the England games in Scotland. A complete waste of EPG space.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    MikeK said:

    BanTheBBC ‏@BanTheBBC 58m
    BBC not covering Scottish anti-BBC protest, but China TV is haha WATCH: http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/BBCBiasV

    I'm sure the Record is looking forward to reporting it, in their own unique style, tomorrow.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    Just seen the 'read between the lines' comment from the Queen.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited September 2014
    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    SeanT said:


    This is what inclines me to think it will perhaps be a YES, despite the polling showing a narrow NO. There is just too much evidence of maximum commitment to vote, and of a very efficient YES GOTV operation.

    If the 97% registration figure is right then between them the campaigns have managed to sign up pretty much everyone: Alzheimer sufferers, people hiding from their psycho ex-girlfriends, people in comas and people trapped down wells. They couldn't have done that unless _both_ sides had high motivation and seriously efficient organizations.
    How many Scots who live in England have registered at relatives addresses?

    I hear rumours from Corby...
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    Sky reporting the protest.

    Yes look like 'football' hooligans.

    Expect Sky to be next to be protested.
  • Options

    Neil said:

    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.

    On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government, such as (for example) HS2, new airport capacity, fracking, planning policy, immigration policy, the UK's relationship with the rest of the EU, and negotiations with Scotland on their exit? Not to mention the existing scandal of the West Lothian Question in relation to the NHS and Education.
    Cameron chickened out of dealing with the WLQ so you only have yourselves to blame for that dogs' breakfast.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260
    AllyM said:

    Sky reporting the protest.

    Yes look like 'football' hooligans.

    Expect Sky to be next to be protested.

    Must point out, that was my perception, not Skys.

    Though the images weren't flattering.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    So Scottish people shouldnt be allowed a say on the taxes they will be forced to pay in 2015/16? No wonder so many of them are looking for independence.

    On the other hand, why should MPs representing a country on its way out have any say at all in long-term decisions of the UK government
    Because to the extent that they impact on the UK as a whole they impact on Scotland. To the extent that they dont impact on Scotland then you can blame the current constitutional settlement which would apply whatever the result on Thursday. To the extent that these are long term issues then rUK can revisit them after independence should they wish. A 'yes' vote isnt an excuse to suspend democracy.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @alex
    Presumably he thinks that an Indy Scotland will be accepted into the EU? On the other hand, the UK leaving would be permanent.
    But you would have to find out the details (if there are any) from a different source to the BBC blog.
  • Options
    Mr. Dickson, fair comment that Cameron has failed to ask, let alone answer, the West Lothian Question. However, the situation was not of his making. If No wins and Caledonian devomax occurs, the situation for the English will be of Cameron's making and a response (whether English votes for English laws or a Parliament) would be entirely his responsibility.
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
    Then they catch torture you and give you the same options. Then what?
  • Options
    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
    The second option is infinitely more attractive -a week longer alive, a week longer to be rescued or ransomed, or for plans to change, vs inevitable death in the next 5 minutes.
  • Options
    MikeK said:

    BanTheBBC ‏@BanTheBBC 58m
    BBC not covering Scottish anti-BBC protest, but China TV is haha WATCH: http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/BBCBiasV

    If you just listen to the sound it's like an old western with the Indians chanting and dancing!

    Weird.
  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244
    Swiss_Bob said:

    MikeK said:

    BanTheBBC ‏@BanTheBBC 58m
    BBC not covering Scottish anti-BBC protest, but China TV is haha WATCH: http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/BBCBiasV

    If you just listen to the sound it's like an old western with the Indians chanting and dancing!

    Weird.
    I was thinking of African slave songs
  • Options
    saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245

    saddened said:



    That is some serious tin foil hattery.

    To you, yes. On the streets of Syria, it's simply fact.
    No it isn't, it may be perceived to be fact, but that doesn't make it fact. Tin foil hat wearers are not best placed to be the final arbiters of what is and isn't fact.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931
    saddened said:

    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
    Then they catch torture you and give you the same options. Then what?
    I really don't know, its not much of a choice is it. I guess if I had been tortured Id say anything.

    I agreed with @JosiasJessop last night to prevent the torture of his endless pinickity questions so Im not trying to be a brave keyboard warrior!

    I wouldn't go anywhere near the middle east personally. Although its probably coming to me soon
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AllyM said:

    Sky reporting the protest.

    Yes look like 'football' hooligans.

    Expect Sky to be next to be protested.

    They need to seek advice from the Orange Order in how to marshall a protest.

    My (half Scottish) father is appalled, and asked if we want another Northern Ireland on our hands.
  • Options
    saddened said:

    saddened said:



    That is some serious tin foil hattery.

    To you, yes. On the streets of Syria, it's simply fact.
    No it isn't, it may be perceived to be fact, but that doesn't make it fact. Tin foil hat wearers are not best placed to be the final arbiters of what is and isn't fact.
    Who you perceive to be wearing tinfoil is entirely based upon perception.

  • Options

    AllyM said:

    Sky reporting the protest.

    Yes look like 'football' hooligans.

    Expect Sky to be next to be protested.

    They need to seek advice from the Orange Order in how to marshall a protest.

    My (half Scottish) father is appalled, and asked if we want another Northern Ireland on our hands.
    So it is in the genes.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    I'm no fan of the Labour Party, but I don't think they would be so stupid as to use soon to be ex-MPs from Scotland to block legislation. They know they'd get slaughtered come the general election if they played such games.
  • Options
    FWIW in terms of a ground campaign we've had the monthly Lib Dem MP's newsletter featuring increasing warnings about the perils of independence, a couple of official looking booklet/pamphlet things from hm government and not a whole lot else from the BT side. Surprisingly little from Labour (given our MSP is Labour and fairly high profile: maybe we've had one newsletter thing from her in the last six months). No BTers at our doorstep.

    Meanwhile Yes have canvassed once, held a meeting in our village of a few hundred (as well as Sturgeon doing a lengthy Q and A in the nearest town), and sent far more of their propaganda leaflets (even finding it worthwhile to spend a letter to tell me about the handful of jobs saved in Port Glasgow).

    The wife takes the kids out every Saturday and they come back with Yes balloons and so on every week and hardly ever encounter BT.

    If Yes win (I'm guessing a narrow No win is more likely), I suspect organisation on the ground would more than account for the victory margin.
  • Options
    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    This is off, really off.

    I'm not watching the video, but I have read this Scottish guy's script -it could have been written by someone wanting to sign the UK up to bomb. It's virtually word for word a 'war sceptic' statement -meaning anyone who makes those arguments will now be making 'ISIS' arguments. It even has a nice PR bit for Tony Blair about him attacking Al Qaeda (which he never did).

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
    Then they catch torture you and give you the same options. Then what?
    I really don't know, its not much of a choice is it. I guess if I had been tortured Id say anything.

    I agreed with @JosiasJessop last night to prevent the torture of his endless pinickity questions so Im not trying to be a brave keyboard warrior!

    I wouldn't go anywhere near the middle east personally. Although its probably coming to me soon
    Torture, fine (I don't agree, but fine). But no tears, no fear of imminent violent death? I'd be sobbing.
  • Options
    Anyone else getting "Apply for an Australian visa" ads on the Scotland threads?
  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244

    Anyone else getting "Apply for an Australian visa" ads on the Scotland threads?

    I'm getting an ad from ecovision mocking me for "still buying oil" ;)
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @edmundintokyo
    I am getting "Scottish debt help" and an Asus computer ad.
    I must be a different demographic.
  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244
    edited September 2014
    Smarmeron said:

    @edmundintokyo
    I am getting "Scottish debt help" and an Asus computer ad.
    I must be a different demographic.

    Buy the computer and ignore the debt :)
  • Options

    How has a party that wants to break up the country got more credibility and a better platform than a party that simply wants to leave an international association we didn't even join until the 70s? 'Whining Jessies' seems to spring to mind.

    As someone who has voted both SNP and UKIP it seems pretty obvious that winning elections (much easier without FPTP) is key. It is very clear that both parties are opposed by both the British and Scottish establishments. Both understandably whine about it, but surely that's the lotof the anti-establishment party?

  • Options
    Hmm, Salmond, now back tracking on what ‘once in a generation’ means – it’s now 18 years.

    It will be even shorter if there is a NO vote.- think fruit fly.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,931

    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    saddened said:

    isam said:

    SeanT said:

    FPT: RE -ISIS

    I don't believe that these men thought they were about to die. Either because:
    a) they weren't about to die and the videos are fake, or
    b) they were about to die, but thought it was play acting.

    Why wouldn't you run away and get shot in the back? Preferable to a knife in the throat. Why read the whole speech? No signs whatever of mistreatment either.

    As I posted before, this is Steven Sotloff:
    http://friendsofsyria.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/10672238_771548192891571_7878428630419055706_n1.jpg?w=640

    I haven't seen the latest vid but I saw the earlier ones, where there is a clear edit between the speeches (by the captives) and the actual murders and the grisly aftermath.

    You never got this "edit" on the horrific Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq beheading videos.

    Intel experts are presuming that the captives were all persuaded to make these filmed speeches in the hopes that they might live. Hence their "relative" calm.

    They were then murdered hours or days later in the same spot. And probably all of them at the same time.
    Isnt it strange though that they seem to all say something along the lines of "Cameron/Obama you killed me/you wrote my death sentence when you did xxx"?

    Just that I cant remember or imagine a hostage living to tell the tale after saying such words
    We ARE going to cut your head off, we can do it now immediately after you say what we tell you. Or we can do it next week after we have tortured you to the point that you say what we tell you. Which choice would you opt for? These lunatics don't care which you pick, but you would, so which would you pick?
    I'd make a run for it
    Then they catch torture you and give you the same options. Then what?
    I really don't know, its not much of a choice is it. I guess if I had been tortured Id say anything.

    I agreed with @JosiasJessop last night to prevent the torture of his endless pinickity questions so Im not trying to be a brave keyboard warrior!

    I wouldn't go anywhere near the middle east personally. Although its probably coming to me soon
    Torture, fine (I don't agree, but fine). But no tears, no fear of imminent violent death? I'd be sobbing.
    I find it hard to put myself in their shoes.. who knows how we would act?

    I wouldn't even go anywhere near the Middle East let alone volunteer to hand out aid etc... its borderline madness to do so in my opinion, but these people are made of stronger stuff than I am
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited September 2014
    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260

    AllyM said:

    Sky reporting the protest.

    Yes look like 'football' hooligans.

    Expect Sky to be next to be protested.

    They need to seek advice from the Orange Order in how to marshall a protest.

    My (half Scottish) father is appalled, and asked if we want another Northern Ireland on our hands.
    A lover of the Orange Order I am not but, their march yesterday was calm and well presented.

    The Yes protest looks like a siege. A turn off.
  • Options

    Hmm, Salmond, now back tracking on what ‘once in a generation’ means – it’s now 18 years.

    It will be even shorter if there is a NO vote.- think fruit fly.

    I made this point elsewhere.

    If the Scots economy goes belly-up as I and many others predict then what makes anyone in Scotland think England will say, 'Welcome back' if they decide to have another vote sometime in the future. It's for the deluded.
  • Options
    alex said:

    Anyone else getting "Apply for an Australian visa" ads on the Scotland threads?

    I'm getting an ad from ecovision mocking me for "still buying oil" ;)
    Ditto - earlier I made the mistake of clicking on a BevC link - and got ads for shoes all week..
  • Options
    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
    It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
  • Options
    AllyMAllyM Posts: 260

    FWIW in terms of a ground campaign we've had the monthly Lib Dem MP's newsletter featuring increasing warnings about the perils of independence, a couple of official looking booklet/pamphlet things from hm government and not a whole lot else from the BT side. Surprisingly little from Labour (given our MSP is Labour and fairly high profile: maybe we've had one newsletter thing from her in the last six months). No BTers at our doorstep.

    Meanwhile Yes have canvassed once, held a meeting in our village of a few hundred (as well as Sturgeon doing a lengthy Q and A in the nearest town), and sent far more of their propaganda leaflets (even finding it worthwhile to spend a letter to tell me about the handful of jobs saved in Port Glasgow).

    The wife takes the kids out every Saturday and they come back with Yes balloons and so on every week and hardly ever encounter BT.

    If Yes win (I'm guessing a narrow No win is more likely), I suspect organisation on the ground would more than account for the victory margin.

    We've seen neither side apart from the odd leaflet. My area of an Aberdeen suburb seems largely ignored by both sides.
  • Options
    alex said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    MikeK said:

    BanTheBBC ‏@BanTheBBC 58m
    BBC not covering Scottish anti-BBC protest, but China TV is haha WATCH: http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/BBCBiasV

    If you just listen to the sound it's like an old western with the Indians chanting and dancing!

    Weird.
    I was thinking of African slave songs
    I think they were singing slave spirituals. The random chaotic percussion and their tone deaf caterwauling produced an auditory nightmare.
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @SimonStClare
    I hope that doesn't happen to HurstLama, His libido nearly exploded at the thought of "corset shoes" :-)
  • Options
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Hmm, Salmond, now back tracking on what ‘once in a generation’ means – it’s now 18 years.

    It will be even shorter if there is a NO vote.- think fruit fly.

    I made this point elsewhere.

    If the Scots economy goes belly-up as I and many others predict then what makes anyone in Scotland think England will say, 'Welcome back' if they decide to have another vote sometime in the future. It's for the deluded.
    It's certainly deluded to think Salmond is referring to a post Yes referendum to rejoin the Union!
  • Options
    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)

    English MPs are already "banned" from voting on Scottish devolved matters.

  • Options
    saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
    It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
    The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
    It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
    Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
  • Options
    Smarmeron said:

    @SimonStClare
    I hope that doesn't happen to HurstLama, His libido nearly exploded at the thought of "corset shoes" :-)

    I think that's why I pressed the link provided, 'corset shoes' did sound intriguing, wedges too!
  • Options
    SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    At least Scotland won't run out of electricity, we export 26% of ours elsewhere.
  • Options
    alexalex Posts: 244
    edited September 2014
    saddo said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
    It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
    The Tories will be insane not to stand on England MP's only voting on England only issues. Its an election winning strategy.
    And totally unworkable in practice post election. It would also arguably not be "election winning" among Labour supporters. And would end Tory representation in Wales.

    An English Parliament is a solution, albeit not without it's implementation problems. But I really think that the English would vote against creating a whole new category of politicians. The great advantage of a massively centralisated state is that there are as few politicians as possible.
  • Options

    How has a party that wants to break up the country got more credibility and a better platform than a party that simply wants to leave an international association we didn't even join until the 70s? 'Whining Jessies' seems to spring to mind.

    As someone who has voted both SNP and UKIP it seems pretty obvious that winning elections (much easier without FPTP) is key. It is very clear that both parties are opposed by both the British and Scottish establishments. Both understandably whine about it, but surely that's the lotof the anti-establishment party?

    Perhaps, but resistance to UKIP in the media has grown with its electoral success, not shrunk. Personally I think it's a difference in consequences. Scottish independence is certainly a huge headache for the international establishment, but so long as they remain within the EU, it's not a disaster. A country of a viable size and strength like the UK leaving the EU on the other hand, would be a huge blow.
  • Options
    Neil said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Danny565 said:

    taffys said:

    It will get Peter Hennessey and all those other constitutional experts shaking their jowls interminably on BBC news.

    The party that lets its MPs do that will be annihilated in England.

    Basically, labour's scotsmen are gone. If Yes wins they are gone.

    If no wins they are still gone, because no means devomax.

    Admittedly I misread; I thought the suggestion was that Scottish MPs should be barred even if they stay in the UK.

    But if it's a No, then I still say the idea of "banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws" will be a nonstarter. I'm not aware of any parliament in the whole world which, itself, bans certain MPs from voting on certain laws? (though I might be wrong.) I would've thought it's an unwritten convention that a directly-elected parliament isn't allowed to dictate the powers of other MPs. Never mind what Labour/LibDem MPs would do, the self-styled "constituional watchdogs" on the crossbenches in the House of Lords would be screaming blue murder. (It would have to pass through the HoL presumably?)
    It's a question of legitimacy, they would have none.
    Why would they not have a legitimate say in setting the taxes that their constituents would be legally obliged to pay?
    Neil, they can do what they want. Simply put, they can stick with the current legislation they have until they decide to change it and otherwise ignore Westminster.

    I doubt it's particularly complicated to resolve but it is unacceptable on the basis they have voted to not be part of this nation. After a 'Yes' vote they shouldn't even be allowed to stand, it's a nonsense.
  • Options

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Hmm, Salmond, now back tracking on what ‘once in a generation’ means – it’s now 18 years.

    It will be even shorter if there is a NO vote.- think fruit fly.

    I made this point elsewhere.

    If the Scots economy goes belly-up as I and many others predict then what makes anyone in Scotland think England will say, 'Welcome back' if they decide to have another vote sometime in the future. It's for the deluded.
    It's certainly deluded to think Salmond is referring to a post Yes referendum to rejoin the Union!
    I know that but it is what the Dear Leader implied.
  • Options
    Smarmeron said:

    At least Scotland won't run out of electricity, we export 26% of ours elsewhere.

    But your nuclear and coal plants are closing, and there is not much sign of further baseload generation to come online in the near future. Very possible that by the mid-2020s, rUK would be a net exporter to Scotland.
This discussion has been closed.