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

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

Minging Campbell saying that extra powers must be given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland 'very quickly' after a 'No' vote.

Not if the conservatives have anything to do with it, sunshine.

It would suit the tories perfectly to block every rash promise being made by desperate labour and liberal politicians until after 2015.

DavidL said:

Alex Salmond is a muppet.

In other news I have spent the whole date on GOTV. Until my second last house of the entire day I had not had anyone who had been no or even uncertain who were then voting Yes (other than a slightly odd couple who had already decided that one would vote yes and one no to cancel each other out. Surprisingly, this is not as rare as you might think). I managed to persuade about a dozen who had previously been "don't know" to voting no. At least another dozen, more like 20 had made their decisions on their own, all turning to no.

So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.

Its all a bit weird.

Excellent job -good man

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 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).

Or they were told that if they read the speech then they would be let go

Well quite -or at least told that they would only be 'pretend killed' or something. Then off screen (as it seems) the genuine thing happened. It's all extremely perplexing.

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. .

Plenty of people would, I am sure, be happy to disagree on that, which is surely the point. I think they'd be wrong, but then clearly we are now just querying about how broad a definition Christianity has, not that one cannot take a very broad definition of it, just where the line is. Given how different some existing denominations are, personally I don't see the introduction of an additional book to be so radical as to make all the things that are so very christian about it mean nothing in comparison. Not believing Jesus was the son of God at all, or something along those lines, seems far more radical than deciding the bible could use some amending, to me at least, and some diverge from 'proper' christian ideas a lot.

But I shall leave it to the Christians to resolve this one I guess. Given the 'return to the teachings of the early church' sort of ideas that pop up over the millenia, people worried about things changing too much over time (not a purely christian thing of course), it might be amusing to wonder if those early christians would feel if some of the largest denominations of today were proper christians or not.

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.

Personally I don't exclude Quakers. All have different ways of observing their faith. Quakers by sitting in silence till God starts making them wobble around, Methodists by singing Sankey and Moodey hymns, The Salvation Army by brass bands and soup kitchens, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed. The Reformation (and I admit I'm not the world authority) disagreed with Purgatory, indulgences, Mass said in Latin etc. etc. -things that the Roman Catholic Church had introduced, not things that were fundamental to the faith. It was back to basics, not on to something new.

Remember the Nats have the most sophisticated voter ID system in the West. They know where their vote is and the there will be an army calling them up reminding them to vote. This is how they won in 2007 adding around 5% to their vote and winning by a single MSP.

Think also about the new registrants who are mostly poor, young and Yes voters. They know where they are and how to contact them. This is a huge advantage if the polls are right and the race is as tight as they say it is..

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

You're making up a raty book.

, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.

Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed. And yet previously they were still referred to as Christians, until a more dominant sect decided to declare on their own authority that they could not be christians even if they thought they were apparently.

Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?

But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.

, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.

Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed.

Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?

But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.

I find it fascinating, though I only have GCSE level knowledge!

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

You're making up a rather arbitrary line where Protestants are counted within and Jehova's Witnesses are counted outside. Congregationalists are probably closer to Quakers than they are to Catholics, yet Quakers get excluded? Why is a "different" book (actually an "extra" book, but never mind) the arbitrary difference? Most religions in the world don't even have a single holy book.

, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.

Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed.

Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?

But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.

I find it fascinating, though I only have GCSE level knowledge!

Me too, although my school was criticized for its particularly poor RE teaching, so I put even less weight on what I learned there!

Makes a nice break between Referendum battles though.

Stuart_Dickson said:

EXIT POLL Nr2 (SVT) - details:

Left Party 6.6% (+1.0)

Social Democrats 31.1% (+0.4)

Greens 7.1% (-0.2)

Centre Party 6.5% (-0.1)

Peoples' Party 6.0% (-1.0)

Christian Democrats 5.0% (-0.6)

Moderates 22.2% (-7.9)

Sweden Democrats 10.5% (+4.8)

Feminist Initiative 4.0% (+3.6)

Does that give the centre-left coalition an outright majority?

Anyone have a link for live streaming of the Swedish election programme?

Boab said:

DavidL said:

So either (a) I am the world's best canvasser (not); (b) very lucky (even less likely); (c) the polls are total defecation or (d) the canvassers (multiple) who had dealt with these areas previously were seriously cautious in their assessments.

Its all a bit weird.

OR they just agreed with you to get rid of a bloody annoying canvasser?!

Yeah, you are right that is definitely (e).

But of the alleged surge in Yes or the swing in No supporters to yes supposedly picked up by the polls, particularly Yougov, there was no sign at all.

The second last house which were now 3 definite "yesses" seemed to arise because the previous canvasser had spoken to the mother and I was speaking to the son who was a first time voter and obviously very pro yes.

Recent events, not least the "battle of Reform Street" (on which I have previously commented and which seemed to me more a joke than a battle) had clearly had more impact on the people I was speaking to. In the odd house I was treated like a returner from the Somme, which made it difficult to keep a straight face.

SouthamObserver said:

Tweets from Murdoch tonight suggest he has got a touch of the wobbles about Scottish independence.

He seems to have imagined there was a possibility of a Scotland outside both the UK and the EU which makes one wonder whether he has really lost it. Or what he has been smoking.

Swedish election programme:

http://www.svt.se/nyheter/live/direktrapportering-valdagen

How did I miss this earlier in the day?

@piersmorgan

Dear People of Scotland, if you vote NO, I promise to go straight back to America. #indyref

kle4 said:

How did I miss this earlier in the day?

@piersmorgan

Dear People of Scotland, if you vote NO, I promise to go straight back to America. #indyref

Damn, if only I had known when I was canvassing.

Sweden links

TV: http://www.svtplay.se/video/2309322/valvakan

Official results: http://www.val.se/val/val2014/valnatt/R/rike/index.html

Results map: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/valaret2014/riksdag/Valresultat/#/area=national&graph=procent

Liveblog in English: http://www.thelocal.se/20140914/the-locals-live-blog-sweden-elections-stockholm

Exit polls were out at 7, Moderates biggest losers, main gainers Sweden Democrats and Feminist Initiative, all other parties (including Social Democrats) changed by 1% or less v 2010.

9/5837 stations reporting, Sweden Democrats currently up 8% at 14%.

If Soc Dems + Greens + Left + Feminists is not a majority (175 needed), Reinfeldt may be able to continue his centre right govt with tacit support of Sweden Democrats.

Thanks

DC

kle4 said:

By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter

Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"

Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.

I see the majority coming from Twitter on the referendum, is any old , made up tripe in order to get retweets et al.

The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.

kle4 said:

AllyM said:

kle4 said:

By the by, one argument I hate is one seen on the BBC livetext today from someone on twitter

Isn't it pure, dead brilliant, to see ordinary Scottish people just ignore those incoherent, doom-laden, daft ramblings of The Establishment and simply say - "WE will decide this, NOT YOU!!"

Fair enough hating or just not being convinced by the 'Establishment' Campaign, but they are trying to convince people on how they should vote, not say that the people cannot decide matters. For god's sake, that response is not even in response to anything the Establishment is saying, it's just a stock response. Take it to its conclusion and it is saying anyone not supporting Yes in a public position should not be allowed to speak, and not even the Yes or No campaigns have said their opponents should not be able to put forth their arguments. Just belittled them when it arrives.

I see the majority coming from Twitter on the referendum, is any old , made up tripe in order to get retweets et al.

The example you found was case in point. There is millions others like it. People sprouting rubbish and plenty tall tales to get attention.

It's no surprise everyone is running out of ideas by this point. Longest campaign in history, or outside US at least?

Aye, agreed.

I've seen some real tall tales out there. Some of them are truly ridiculous. As you say though, people running out of ideas so making it up to get that much needed attention, retweets or 'seen' to be a radical.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

Luckyguy1983 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).

Or they were told that if they read the speech then they would be let go

Well quite -or at least told that they would only be 'pretend killed' or something. Then off screen (as it seems) the genuine thing happened. It's all extremely perplexing.

Not really. If you are about to die, but you think that there's a way out you'll take it. Even if it is very low probability.

New thread

kle4 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

kle4 said:

Islam does not revere Christ as God though, which is key definition of a Christian, surely? Mormons have their own Holy Book, but it's about Jesus isn't it, I mean it's referred to as 'another testament of Jesus Christ'. Hell, there are so many christian sects out there who would regard many or all of the others as not being not 'true' christians even while using the same holy book, or for taking into account or emphasising different bits of it and various practices, so I think it a bit ridiculous that Mormons would not be christian because they've added their own interpretations in book form, when different interpretations on some pretty key things separate other denominations even without a separate holy book.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. There have been various doctrinal schisms within Christianity, the two biggest being the Filioque (where the Orthodox Church broke away) and the Reformation, and in neither were the fundamentals of the faith substantially altered -certainly not with a whole different book! Whether you're a happy clappy or a high Catholic, it is one faith. Where something falls outside, it has been recognised as such -for instance Jehova's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's why they're JWs not Christians.

You're making up a raty book.

, but they all fundamentally believe the same -the Bible, as decided by the Nicene creed.

Then surely a compromise between Nicenean Christians and Non-Nicenean Christians could apply? I'm no authority on this, I've had to look at wikipedia of all things on a few things, but there's even a page of Nicene Christianity and how the main 'rival doctrine' was Arian Christianity as Socrates mentioned earlier. For a very long time anything non-nicenean may have been deemed heretical, but people self identified as christians before it and after it it seems, they just don't belong to the majority screed. And yet previously they were still referred to as Christians, until a more dominant sect decided to declare on their own authority that they could not be christians even if they thought they were apparently.

Fascinating stuff this - Oriental Orthodoxy apparently does not accept the latter four of the first seven ecumenical councils. Are they still Christian then, for rejecting those attempts to unify definitions and rules on what christianity was?

But I shall try to shut up now, or it will get boring no doubt.

Arian are heretics, not Christians. The fact that someone claims to be something doesn't make it true