The Bishop of Stortford
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:31 PM
Quick question was anyone expecting this document to say sorry guys, you're right, we're wrong. We're all voting yes too...?
Neither side will wobble on the yes/no aspect... they have picked their sides and there is too much face to lose by giving in early. Save that for the day of the vote 
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:32 PM
Supercharger of Doom
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:36 PM
Quick question was anyone expecting this document to say sorry guys, you're right, we're wrong. We're all voting yes too...?
No, of course not.
But it seems to me (and yes I've probably been brainwashed by the Westminster and BBC thought police and am now part of the conspiracy) that whilst the No side accept there are uncertainties, few absolutes, differing views and differing levels of commitment to either side of the argument, the Yes side just immediately dismiss (or shout down) any thing or any opinion that doesn't 100% back their viewpoint and start talking about bias/conspiracy/unpatriotic/yadayadayada.
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:39 PM
The Better Together/No Thanks campaign consists entirely of the ConDem government plus Labour. It's one and the same. PS the only party to hold a democratic majority in any parliament in the UK is the SNP. That's how we got here.You are suggesting the document is simply from a campaign group, they are bound to say these things and so the content should be dismissed.Zuber lost me again. Who are you suggesting isn't democratically elected in the debate?
Supercharger of Doom
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:40 PM
It even includes some of the bits that were regarded as a "gross misrepresentation" of figures by the LSE professor who made them
Did it not turn out the professor talking out of his arse and they hadn't used his numbers in the end?
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:51 PM
Really not like that and I'm sorry if that's what you're getting from it. If you watch some of the public debates there is proper mature debate. I particularly like one's with Patrick Harvie in them. But documents like this don't offer any of that, it's pure propganda. I fully accept the same is true of the other side. I don't own a copy of the SNP Scotland's Future book. It's only one vision and not what we're voting for. The Yes Scotlandwebsite will even tell you that. But it's banded about as this will be the outcome, it isn't. If there is a yes vote there will be a cross party negociating team and the terms will be set there by all of us. Retorting in here gets tiring because its mainly turned into point scoring by Ross and me. Watch some of the debates online and you'll get a grasp of what the movement is about. There'll always be reasons not to do it but there's many reasons we should. It's a balance of both that has to be decided by the voters in September. There's never going to be a black or white choice.No, of course not. But it seems to me (and yes I've probably been brainwashed by the Westminster and BBC thought police and am now part of the conspiracy) that whilst the No side accept there are uncertainties, few absolutes, differing views and differing levels of commitment to either side of the argument, the Yes side just immediately dismiss (or shout down) any thing or any opinion that doesn't 100% back their viewpoint and start talking about bias/conspiracy/unpatriotic/yadayadayada.Quick question was anyone expecting this document to say sorry guys, you're right, we're wrong. We're all voting yes too...?
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 01:54 PM
Nope, that particular stooshie is still ongoing. Yes Scotland have set a fire under it in todays papers for a bit more exposure. As it's particularly embarrassing for the No camp. As is their poofing out of the TV debate. edit - There, their, they'reDid it not turn out the professor talking out of his arse and they hadn't used his numbers in the end?It even includes some of the bits that were regarded as a "gross misrepresentation" of figures by the LSE professor who made them
Edited by LY_Scott, 25 June 2014 - 01:54 PM.
Jeep Driving jolly nice chap
Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:16 PM
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:19 PM
Jeep Driving jolly nice chap
Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:21 PM
I vote Gary C.September 18th
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 02:24 PM
Scary Internerd
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:28 PM
Nope, that particular stooshie is still ongoing. Yes Scotland have set a fire under it in todays papers for a bit more exposure. As it's particularly embarrassing for the No camp. As is their poofing out of the TV debate. edit - There, their, they're
Did it not turn out the professor talking out of his arse and they hadn't used his numbers in the end?It even includes some of the bits that were regarded as a "gross misrepresentation" of figures by the LSE professor who made them
Really? In theory it should be particularly embaracing for the 'Yes' camp, given the SNP have not produced any equivalent figures on set-up costs, other than one professor (not saying he is wrong). Its not like they haven't had time to put this together..
The problem is that most of us have come to expect silence on significant issues like this from the SNP. They actually answer very few questions or concerns in a proper, logical manner, which is unfortunate for those trying to come to a decision on which way to vote..
The document link was not meant to challenge the likes of Scott - he's one of the converted, and will have seen most of the info contained, and will continue to ignore it. It was meant of as more of a counter to the white paper wishlist. Its actually a more rigerous and technical analysis of the situation than the SNP White paper which relies much more on sentiment and "vision". Of course one is written from the perspective of a future vision, while the UK government analysis can be based on actual data and historical records, although it has future predictions also.
The link posted is the conclusions document. The full suite of documents can be found at the link below:
www.gov.uk/scotlandanalysis
It would have been nice for the SNP white paper to have included more factual info however, although of course that would have made it harder to sell..
Oh and Scott, I don't think you've managed to score any points yet..? 
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:30 PM
Formerly LY055SCO
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:37 PM
Scary Internerd
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:45 PM
I rest my case...
Standard nationalist response.. (i.e. no response)
Jeep Driving jolly nice chap
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:49 PM
Scary Internerd
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:52 PM
What do people on the Orkneys think?
They're vikings..
Jeep Driving jolly nice chap
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:54 PM
well they need considering in all this. What say the Shetlanders?They're vikings..What do people on the Orkneys think?
RaceMode
Posted 25 June 2014 - 03:56 PM
they couldn't give a shet
Scary Internerd
Posted 25 June 2014 - 04:01 PM
well they need considering in all this. What say the Shetlanders?
They're vikings..What do people on the Orkneys think?
Most of these out-lying communities seem to be a bit resigned to it not making much difference.. You'd think they might be pro-indy given they are even further away from the throne of power in Westminster (like distance is the defining factor), but they are fairly split as they realise they will likely be no better served by a Scottish government with a bit more power, which tends to be more central belt (Glasgow-Edinburgh) focused, so would prefer the stability of the UK.
Just waiting on the Shetlanders to start their campaign "It's Shetlands oil!"..
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
