Final polls for GE15 and round up !!

First topic message reminder :

TNS -...............Con 33.................Lab .....32

Panelbase -.......SNP 48................Lab ......26 = wipeout !!

Opinion -..........Con 35.................Lab.......34

Yougov Wales...Lab 39..................Con 25..........Plaid 13 (Change the leader she's crap!!)

Comres .........Con 35..................Lab 30..........(Majority within the margin of error)

Yougov...........Con 34..................Lab 34...................

Ashcroft has Farage winning............

Ashcroft has Clegg safe.........

Ashcroft has IDS number 2 Esther Mcvey behind in her seat.............

Don't forget the big plus for the Tories is voter registration...................Like Republicans in the USA......They are more likely to register.....

Pollsters don't ask are you registered !!

I do have to ask Craig, Why was it childish to say no to the pound and point out that Scotland would have to provide it's own NHS?
I would have said the answer that salmond gave was more childish 'Yes we can'

Nothing seemed to be looked at properly and the answer to any negative was a throwing the toys out of the pram yelling 'this is unfair (Europe, Pound, NHS, jobs, Navy contracts, oh and debts)

Why would a sovereign country expect another one to prop it up?

GSC wrote:And if the SNP had managed to successfully provide answers that these things weren't going to happen with sound reasoning behind it then they couldve brought those voters back.

Except the SNP dont have the answers to those questions. And if I were voting on independence, id want to be damn sure they did. Voting for independence otherwise is so stupid its barely worth contemplating.

You call it scaremongering, I call it wanting to know there's a realistic and sound strategy after independence.

Look, I think those voting in Scotland now and in the future are/would be under no illusion that gaining independence would at first be tough but the cutting the shackles to Westminster and feeling that if things went jubblies up then they'd be getting messed up by Scots for Scots. Easier to take than what you have at the moment as in Tories (who have now only 1 MP in Scotland) deciding what is best for Scotland. And that is the whole crux of it all. Scotland is governed by a party that has no political relevance in Scotland and even when they did they screwed the country with highest poll taxes in the UK and closing of vital industries etc etc. Even if Labour had won last night they are now the same - politically irrelevant in Scotland.

Give Scotland fiscal control and see if they can handle that

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GSC wrote:Scotland voted to be part of that union last time I checked.

Have a look at the history of opinion polls on the subject and you will notice that the call for Independence is one growing louder and stronger. Hmm 5% in it is far from as conclusive as it looked like being when the whole referendum was announced and I'd say getting 45% was a measure of the will to make it happen despite what Labour individuals were scaremongering. Ironic really. Their modus operandi throughout the campaign was based on what losing Scotland would do for the chances of the Labour party getting back into Westminster hence their motives for protecting the union but now Scotland is virtually Labour MP-free now anyway. Also ask yourself the make-up of those that voted. It may surprise you but a heck of a lot of English people live in Scotland and it is a given that many of them voted no for obvious reasons and the rest that voted no were given promises by Labour in a last-ditch attempt to curry favour and top that off with the spin put out in a rather childish manner like you can't have the pound, you'll lose the NHS, you'll lose the Queen blah blah blah and you have the royalists aboard the no vote. Even though a lot of those things were perhaps not even realistically going to happen it worked on convincing the gullible to vote no. We had all of that yet still the vote was 45% so by no means was this an overwhelming shout to stay in the union. Put it this way - if it had been a boxing match we'd have calls for a rematch now.

As opposed to the childish "we would have got independence if ye never cheated us and telt lies an' that"

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Give Scotland fiscal control and see if they can handle that

Sturgeon doesn't want it. Unlike Salmond she sees that she is screwed if she takes it without Barnett but isn't stupid enough to actually ask for FFA and Barnett together. The fall in oil prices means that Scotland would have an approximate £9 billion deficit to make up.

Scotland voted to be part of the union.

The Tories seek to govern the union.

If Scotland didn't like that arrangement, then they had the chance to make that clear. They voted to continue that arrangement.

Derbymanc wrote:I do have to ask Craig, Why was it childish to say no to the pound and point out that Scotland would have to provide it's own NHS?
I would have said the answer that salmond gave was more childish 'Yes we can'

Nothing seemed to be looked at properly and the answer to any negative was a throwing the toys out of the pram yelling 'this is unfair (Europe, Pound, NHS, jobs, Navy contracts, oh and debts)

Why would a sovereign country expect another one to prop it up?

The pound thing - Salmond said they can because mainly it was never up to Alastair Darling to say yes or no on that I don't think. It would have been arrived through later discussion with treasury and SNP members etc but not for Alastair Darling to say a point blank no to. I am sure the pound could have stood alone as a Scottish pound if so desired. After all Scottish money presently is often not accepted in England at present anyway.

As for the NHS or Scottish NHS as it is know then I cannot see how running of that could not just be transferred over to being run by Scotland. I don't see a copyright of Applesque proportions on the NHS so it would have just become Scotland's government's job of financially backing it. As for jobs etc I can't have seen that altering too greatly and you speak of Navy contracts that would have been easily dealt with as well. And no I am sorry on your last point that is just wrong as in no way would anyone be propping Scotland up.

I am no politician - no one here is - but if Independence were to happen then Scotland are on their own - the Scots understand that and can live with that both financially and otherwise. Like I said earlier it would be tough going at first but to claim Scotland isn't up to it is frankly ludicrous or else why was there such a desperate move made to keep Scotland part of the union if it contains such little business acumen, such little political competence and such few riches. Anyway that is my say on things but people saying this is a flash in the pan I say is it? The Tory and Labour vote has been shrinking at an increasing rated in the last decade or so. An irreversible trend. I don't look for independence in any malice of those in the union or any ill-feeling. This is borne out of a desire to rule our own country as a stand alone country away from the moronic element that continues to rule in Westminster.

GSC wrote:Scotland voted to be part of the union.

The Tories seek to govern the union.

If Scotland didn't like that arrangement, then they had the chance to make that clear. They voted to continue that arrangement.

What, exactly was the make up of the no vote? Take it from me there are a heck of a lot of English residents in Scotland. A heck of a lot were voters conned by Brown's promises as well (hence they have deserted Labour here totally disillusioned). So you have those that voted no for a reason other than if it was what Scotland wanted.

Craig, I don't know the ins and outs of the Scottish referendum but as far as I could see the only people who benefited from a yes vote for the Conservative party and it's a reason why I was disappointed it turned out to be No.

I'm an unashamed Tory supporter and will vote for them every time, I do that for purely selfish reasons, my family and I are not 'poor' so are unaffected by any changes to income tax, VAT etc. It is therefore in my personal interest that Scotland does seek and attain independence in the near future, a Britain without Scotland is a Conservative Britain.

What Gordon Brown did was make a lot of people wake up and realise Scotland does need England, for the English that's a potentially bad thing but for the Scottish it's a good thing, you should probably thank him for saving a sinking ship. The fact it was done to try and benefit the labour party is largely here nor there but the overall impact was positive.

I'm not saying your not up to it Craig, i'm saying that Salmond as woefully under prepared. It was up to Britain to say no to the pound, Salmonds big reveal was that officialy there's nothing you can do to stop someone using your currency, the problem is that it's not worth the same on the national market.

Europe was another, Salmond claimed you'd just become part of the EU, the EU said nope you'll have to apply, and Salmond just ignored it stating we'll be fine.

The NHS was more about how you were going to afford to run it without any money from England, especially after the oil estimates seemingly were woefully over estimated (remember watching the debate and Salmonds answer to that was, we'll see.)

The Navy contract was going to be moved to Plymouth as at the time there was a discussion over shutting one of the bases, considering the whole thing contributes massively to the economy in that part, could have been a disaster. The other was Salmond expecting the RN to patrol Scotland still, something else that was disputed.

As I said Craig, i've got no problem with Scotland gaining independence (and to be honest am all for it) but to go into the debates with that childish attitude was very silly. Labour in the last one was childish too and resorted to 'well you can't use the pound' at every opportunity.

We shall agree to disagree on your last point Hh.

Derbymanc wrote:I'm not saying your not up to it Craig, i'm saying that Salmond as woefully under prepared. It was up to Britain to say no to the pound, Salmonds big reveal was that officialy there's nothing you can do to stop someone using your currency, the problem is that it's not worth the same on the national market.

Europe was another, Salmond claimed you'd just become part of the EU, the EU said nope you'll have to apply, and Salmond just ignored it stating we'll be fine.

The NHS was more about how you were going to afford to run it without any money from England, especially after the oil estimates seemingly were woefully over estimated (remember watching the debate and Salmonds answer to that was, we'll see.)

The Navy contract was going to be moved to Plymouth as at the time there was a discussion over shutting one of the bases, considering the whole thing contributes massively to the economy in that part, could have been a disaster. The other was Salmond expecting the RN to patrol Scotland still, something else that was disputed.

As I said Craig, i've got no problem with Scotland gaining independence (and to be honest am all for it) but to go into the debates with that childish attitude was very silly. Labour in the last one was childish too and resorted to 'well you can't use the pound' at every opportunity.

Problem Salmond had in those debates was that he had no back up plan on currency and other issues......

For a party that has spent it's whole existence working towards independence........It was woefully under prepared when it got it's shot to put forward policies!!.

Saying that Labour could only dream of a leader with Salmond's drive, bollox and charisma.............

Certainly would have been much closer today If Mili had shared those attributes...

Pretty much like 1992, but with LD total meltdown and inSturgeoncy.

Interesting that Farage said he'd take the summer before effectively deciding to continue (lets be honest, nobody's beating him)

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Harriet Harman is going too.....So there will be a leader and deputy leader election........

Man/Woman or Woman/Man ...Take your pick..

Burnham and Reeves/Piero/Creasy..............I think I'm in love with stella Creasy..

Cooper and Umunna/Jarvis..............Now there is a deputy position on offer not sure Umunna will go for the top job..

Jarvis would be my pick for leader. His military background would stand him in good stead with undecideds, and the fact he's not a career politician like Miliband et al would be a big advantage.

I'm not a fan of Umunna. Comes across as all style and no substance. Tom Watson's said he'll run for deputy, and would be a good choice, as would Creasy.

Needs to be a Male/Female..........or...........Female/Male ticket.............

Those are the times we are in............

Watch out for Caroline Flint making a move...

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Give Scotland fiscal control and see if they can handle that

The Tories probably will, for exactly the reason the SNP don't really want it right now.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Give Scotland fiscal control and see if they can handle that

The Tories probably will, for exactly the reason the SNP don't really want it right now.

More chance of a Labour majority if they did...

Doubt it makes political sense............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Give Scotland fiscal control and see if they can handle that

The Tories probably will, for exactly the reason the SNP don't really want it right now.

More chance of a Labour majority if they did...

Doubt it makes political sense............

I am not sure that it does.

If any of the mainstream political parties (Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems) want to gain a foothold in Scotland again they need a total top to bottom rethink. At present they are stuck in the dark ages as in they are seen as mere off-shoots of parties only interested in what is going on in Westminster. Scotland, in recent years, now have more powers and they pass their own laws and bills that are different from the English bills etc. When those three parties canvas (some don't even bother anymore in Scotland such is the waste of time) they are blowing the trumpet of the Labour/Tories/Lib Dem parties of England and their issues are totally different from what Scots care about or bother about. In short Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservative and Scottish Lib Dems should be loosening or cutting the ties completely with their cousins in England.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Doubt it makes political sense............

They think that given the current situation and the SNP's direction under Sturgeon it would probably end up pushing taxes high enough for people to actually consider voting for the Scottish Conservatives again.

I see Cameron is already thinking about calling Sturgeon's bluff and may offer FFA.

Sturgeon either accepts and has to abandon plans to end austerity or has to raise taxes to address the £8 billion or so deficit caused by the drop in oil prices, or she refuses and admits that  Scotland is not ready for FFA and by extension, independence.  Either way, it's a massive blow for the independence movement.

Of course, she could (ridiculously) demand FFA and Barnett and where the RUK rightly refuses, the Nats can adopt their default position of blaming the English for all life's wrongs.

Just a bit of fanciful speculation.

If all of the UK were given a vote now on independence for Scotland, I suspect the SNP might achieve their aim.

Or.........................

... if SNP had candidates running in England like Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP and Conservatives had candidates in Scotland, perhaps SNP might now be Governing the UK now ..... ...?

SecretFly wrote:if SNP had candidates running in England like Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP and Conservatives had candidates in Scotland, perhaps SNP might now be Governing the UK now    ..... ...?

Campaign would probably have played out a bit differently, but in a PR election I think they probably would have pushed Labour pretty close as it was.

I don't think so. Looks like to me that snp scared the Poopie out of English voters and they decided not to chance it and voted to prevent it.

We have had posters on here saying they voted Conservative and always have as they have a good life etc and feel it is the Tories that suit them best - fair enough. In industrial heartlands in the north of England the Labour party largely fits the bill - fair enough. In Scotland it is the SNP that fits the bill for pushing for a lot of what Scots want and I don't just mean independence but it seems that this is not fine with people. Why?

I'm not so sure why SNP would scare English voters.  A strong SNP is a demanding SNP and a demanding SNP is absolutely guaranteeing that English voices will also demand the idea that English MPs exclusively vote on laws exclusive to England.
So interesting times ahead for everyone, not just the Scottish.  They (SNP) have perhaps unleashed a lot more self-determination for all four distinct parts of the UK.

I certainly thing England should have its own parliament as well. I can certainly see where people are coming from in regards to that they want a parliament solely for decisions to be made with regards to England and England alone.

SecretFly wrote:I'm not so sure why SNP would scare English voters.  A strong SNP is a demanding SNP and a demanding SNP is absolutely guaranteeing that English voices will also demand the idea that English MPs exclusively vote on laws exclusive to England.
So interesting times ahead for everyone, not just the Scottish.  They (SNP) have perhaps unleashed a lot more self-determination for all four distinct parts of the UK.

SNP with potential to influence decisions in England is what scared them the deal with miliband. I agree with you on the rest of it actually but since when does the public react reasonably when something puts the wind up em no matter how unlikely.

ShahenshahG wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'm not so sure why SNP would scare English voters.  A strong SNP is a demanding SNP and a demanding SNP is absolutely guaranteeing that English voices will also demand the idea that English MPs exclusively vote on laws exclusive to England.
So interesting times ahead for everyone, not just the Scottish.  They (SNP) have perhaps unleashed a lot more self-determination for all four distinct parts of the UK.

SNP with potential to influence decisions in England is what scared them the deal with miliband. I agree with you on the rest of it actually but since when does the public react reasonably when something puts the wind up em no matter how unlikely.

Precisely why there was a no vote.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I'm not so sure why SNP would scare English voters.  A strong SNP is a demanding SNP and a demanding SNP is absolutely guaranteeing that English voices will also demand the idea that English MPs exclusively vote on laws exclusive to England.
So interesting times ahead for everyone, not just the Scottish.  They (SNP) have perhaps unleashed a lot more self-determination for all four distinct parts of the UK.

SNP with potential to influence decisions in England is what scared them the deal with miliband. I agree with you on the rest of it actually but since when does the public react reasonably when something puts the wind up em no matter how unlikely.

Precisely why there was a no vote.

Possibly or why so many voted for a yes vote.

Why would independence put the wind up people? The fear of the unknown and threats of what would be lost was putting the wind up.

SNP was playing on a different set of fears. The fear of thier being ignored and left by the wayside. There was some truth to that but that half baked plan for independence could barely convince any halfway competent person that the SNP knew what they were doing. instead the snp played on their fears and some good old anti english sentiment amd nearly lead them into disaster. Even now there's a chance that Cameron may call their bluff and stick em in the Poopie.

Who the bloody hell votes for someone whi has a fiscal plan upon which he cannot give concrete answers or answers that aren't complete suppositions. Even worse who could conceivably put faith in a plan being sold by a guy who when denied the use of sterling announces to the world that Scotland will not pay it's share of the debt.

There are three answers.

A. That 45% of the Scottish are imbeciles
B. Alex Salmond is the son of Keynes
c. The Scottish are letting their hearts rule their head and ignoring the most crucial points because it puts a damper on their dream and aren't giving a thought to the consequences.

I don't have any hesitation in saying it's C.

I don't doubt that a significant proportion of those people were willing to put up with the inevitable hardship that would come afterwards. But much of that 45% is anti english sentiment and that's merely another manifestation of bigotry and bigotry is the refuge of the unimportant or those who perceive themselves to be unimportant. These are the fears that pound shop matryoshkya doll preyed upon. Now that they've got a competent leader they may well achieve independence in the next few decades and it will probably be with a better plan that doesn't rely on guesses or stubborn refusal to accept the facts.

ShahenshahG wrote:SNP was playing on a different set of fears. The fear of thier being ignored and left by the wayside. There was some truth to that but that half baked plan for independence could barely convince any halfway competent person that the SNP knew what they were doing. instead the snp played on their fears and some good old anti english sentiment amd nearly lead them into disaster. Even now there's a chance that Cameron may call their bluff and stick em in the Poopie.

Who the bloody hell votes for someone whi has a fiscal plan upon which he cannot give concrete answers or answers that aren't complete suppositions. Even worse who could conceivably put faith in a plan being sold by a guy who when denied the use of sterling announces to the world that Scotland will not pay it's share of the debt.

There are three answers.

A. That 45% of the Scottish are imbeciles
B. Alex Salmond is the son of Keynes
c. The Scottish are letting their hearts rule their head and ignoring the most crucial points because it puts a damper on their dream and aren't giving a thought to the consequences.

I don't have any hesitation in saying it's C.

I don't doubt that a significant proportion of those people were willing to put up with the inevitable hardship that would come afterwards. But much of that 45% is anti english sentiment and that's merely another manifestation of bigotry and bigotry is the refuge of the unimportant or those who perceive themselves to be unimportant. These are the fears that pound shop matryoshkya doll preyed upon. Now that they've got a competent leader they may well achieve independence in the next few decades and it will probably be with a better plan that doesn't rely on guesses or stubborn refusal to accept the facts.

Dear god.

So the primary reason to seek independence is bigotry. Tell me do you hold the same opinion of Maltese people who gained independence from Britain just over 50 years ago? Or of Indians for breaking away from the British Empire? Or of the USA? Need I go on. And jeez you make a heck of a lot of assumptions from Luton fuelled by unionist opinions no doubt.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:SNP was playing on a different set of fears. The fear of thier being ignored and left by the wayside. There was some truth to that but that half baked plan for independence could barely convince any halfway competent person that the SNP knew what they were doing. instead the snp played on their fears and some good old anti english sentiment amd nearly lead them into disaster. Even now there's a chance that Cameron may call their bluff and stick em in the Poopie.

Who the bloody hell votes for someone whi has a fiscal plan upon which he cannot give concrete answers or answers that aren't complete suppositions. Even worse who could conceivably put faith in a plan being sold by a guy who when denied the use of sterling announces to the world that Scotland will not pay it's share of the debt.

There are three answers.

A. That 45% of the Scottish are imbeciles
B. Alex Salmond is the son of Keynes
c. The Scottish are letting their hearts rule their head and ignoring the most crucial points because it puts a damper on their dream and aren't giving a thought to the consequences.

I don't have any hesitation in saying it's C.

I don't doubt that a significant proportion of those people were willing to put up with the inevitable hardship that would come afterwards. But much of that 45% is anti english sentiment and that's merely another manifestation of bigotry and bigotry is the refuge of the unimportant or those who perceive themselves to be unimportant. These are the fears that pound shop matryoshkya doll preyed upon. Now that they've got a competent leader they may well achieve independence in the next few decades and it will probably be with a better plan that doesn't rely on guesses or stubborn refusal to accept the facts.

Dear god.

So the primary reason to seek independence is bigotry. Tell me do you hold the same opinion of Maltese people who gained independence from Britain just over 50 years ago? Or of Indians for breaking away from the British Empire? Or of the USA? Need I go on. And jeez you make a heck of a lot of assumptions from Luton fuelled by unionist opinions no doubt.

Dear God (who doesn't exist).  Shah had pretty much nailed it and having lived in Scotland all of my life I can vouch for the fact that there's plenty of anti-English sentiment and it's been used to fuel the independence campaign.  You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to read between the lines that when blame is being laid at the doors of "Westminster" - what's really meant is that this is the fault of the English.

Easy way to answer this one CC.  Is shah wrong in anything he's said under option C?  As far as I'm concerned - that sums up the nationalist movement perfectly.  Independence and to hang with the consequences because it will all work out in the end.

Another question for Craig.

If th vote for independence was limited to either over 25s and/ or the employed, I would be quite happy to wager that it would have been closer to a 80/20 in favour of the Union, if not higher.

The large majority of yes voters were doing shouting about nationalistic issues that had never effected them but had been drummed in to them by their parents.

Nobody in Scotland that wants independence are under any illusion how tough things will be at first but the end prize is worth it. I see it akin to the spirit shown when faced with the sacrifices financially and structurally facing people in World War Two. They knew it would be tough for the country but didn't shy away and say blow that we'll go the safe option and remain neutral so that we can have an easy life.

Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Adam D wrote:Another question for Craig.

If th vote for independence was limited to either over 25s and/ or the employed, I would be quite happy to wager that it would have been closer to a 80/20 in favour of the Union, if not higher.

The large majority of yes voters were doing shouting about nationalistic issues that had never effected them but had been drummed in to them by their parents.

Go and pursue the figures about age groups and how they voted they are there. But bear in mind that I think there are various ways you can break down how people voted and bear in mind English/Welsh and Northern Irish people living in Scotland were allowed to vote (bias there in favour of the union I'd strongly guess) whilst Scots living outwith Scotland could not vote (yes voters there a good fair few of them).

And even if there is an ounce of truth in what you say that suggests the younger generation will be pushing for Independence even more vociferously so this question isn't going to go away.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Well if you could give me an idea of your experience of Scotland and its people. Have you lived there or just had a two day holiday there etc?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Well if you could give me an idea of your experience of Scotland and its people. Have you lived there or just had a two day holiday there etc?

4 or 5 weeks work altogether but usually 4 days at a time in Glasgow, in Edinburgh and Dundee between 10 - 13. Can't really give more detail than that because I'm not allowed to reveal my employers name. I've been following the progress in Scotland with interest since 2004 not out of vested interest in the union but because I like to study people and human behaviour in groups. particularly enjoy reading about populist movements and this is one that's so close to home I couldn't resist.

But it seems to me that you're arguing merely for the sake of arguing. Nowhere have I said that I don't want independence for the Scots or if I want a union although I do prefer the union. I've stated that no person could reasonably look at the proposed policy and vote for it. It's daft in the extreme. And being prepared for hardship is grossly understating the issue. Going into independence without any coherent plan isn't just a matter of tightening your belt and getting on with it. It's more akin to replacing your house with a tent then hoping for mild winters.

ShahenshahG wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Well if you could give me an idea of your experience of Scotland and its people. Have you lived there or just had a two day holiday there etc?

4 or 5 weeks work altogether but usually 4 days at a time in Glasgow, in Edinburgh and Dundee between  10 - 13. Can't really give more detail than that because I'm not allowed to reveal my employers name. I've been following the progress in Scotland with interest since 2004  not out of vested interest in the union but because I like to study people and human behaviour in groups. particularly enjoy reading about populist movements and this is one that's so close to home I couldn't resist.

But it seems to me that you're arguing merely for the sake of arguing. Nowhere have I said that I don't want independence for the Scots or if I want a union although I do prefer the union. I've stated that no person could reasonably look at the proposed policy and vote for it. It's daft in the extreme. And being prepared for hardship is grossly understating the issue. Going into independence without any coherent plan isn't just a matter of tightening your belt and getting on with it. It's more akin to replacing your house with a tent then hoping for mild winters.

And do you think, as I said before, Maltese, Indians and Americans are bigots for pursuing independence?

ShahenshahG wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Well if you could give me an idea of your experience of Scotland and its people. Have you lived there or just had a two day holiday there etc?

4 or 5 weeks work altogether but usually 4 days at a time in Glasgow, in Edinburgh and Dundee between  10 - 13. Can't really give more detail than that because I'm not allowed to reveal my employers name. I've been following the progress in Scotland with interest since 2004  not out of vested interest in the union but because I like to study people and human behaviour in groups. particularly enjoy reading about populist movements and this is one that's so close to home I couldn't resist.

But it seems to me that you're arguing merely for the sake of arguing. Nowhere have I said that I don't want independence for the Scots or if I want a union although I do prefer the union. I've stated that no person could reasonably look at the proposed policy and vote for it. It's daft in the extreme. And being prepared for hardship is grossly understating the issue. Going into independence without any coherent plan isn't just a matter of tightening your belt and getting on with it. It's more akin to replacing your house with a tent then hoping for mild winters.

So you do admit to having a biased viewpoint.

And you are still not getting it. You are making wild sweeping assessments on how tough life would be in an independent Scotland when all you are doing is guessing or presuming. The truth is nobody really knows. But to presume bigotry is rampant in Scotland and is fuelling the independence call is way, way off the mark and quite frankly I take extreme offence to it. Can you tell me why, if Scotland is so swamped with bigoted people do half a million English, Welsh and Northern Irish happily live there with all these horrid bigoted monsters as you paint them all around. Why is its capital renowned as such a cosmipolitan city with people of all nationalities living there if it is so crammed with bigots. I think you should have a swift rethink on that assumption.

...I thought you were taking the urine even asking those questions

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:Yes. Luton - the bastion of unionist sentiment.

Well if you could give me an idea of your experience of Scotland and its people. Have you lived there or just had a two day holiday there etc?

4 or 5 weeks work altogether but usually 4 days at a time in Glasgow, in Edinburgh and Dundee between  10 - 13. Can't really give more detail than that because I'm not allowed to reveal my employers name. I've been following the progress in Scotland with interest since 2004  not out of vested interest in the union but because I like to study people and human behaviour in groups. particularly enjoy reading about populist movements and this is one that's so close to home I couldn't resist.

But it seems to me that you're arguing merely for the sake of arguing. Nowhere have I said that I don't want independence for the Scots or if I want a union although I do prefer the union. I've stated that no person could reasonably look at the proposed policy and vote for it. It's daft in the extreme. And being prepared for hardship is grossly understating the issue. Going into independence without any coherent plan isn't just a matter of tightening your belt and getting on with it. It's more akin to replacing your house with a tent then hoping for mild winters.

So you do admit to having a biased viewpoint.

And you are still not getting it. You are making wild sweeping assessments on how tough life would be in an independent Scotland when all you are doing is guessing or presuming. The truth is nobody really knows. But to presume bigotry is rampant in Scotland and is fuelling the independence call is way, way off the mark and quite frankly I take extreme offence to it. Can you tell me why, if Scotland is so swamped with bigoted people do half a million English, Welsh and Northern Irish happily live there with all these horrid bigoted monsters as you paint them all around. Why is its capital renowned as such a cosmipolitan city with people of all nationalities living there if it is so crammed with bigots. I think you should have a swift rethink on that assumption.

Ah yes faux outrage. Brilliant. I suggest you say the same thing to superflyweight who doesn't know these things having lived in Scotland all his life. I'm going to go slap myself in the face till my hands are sore for even thinking you'd take everything I said into consideration and not see only what you want to see.

ShahenshahG wrote:...I thought you were taking the urine even asking those questions

No - you earlier said ''But much of that 45% is anti english sentiment and that's merely another manifestation of bigotry''. So do you also see Maltese, Indians and Americans as bigots? And like I said why is Scotland multi-nationality populated if bigots abound in their millions? Why do half a million English put down roots there with all this anti-English sentiment in their faces?

Let me educate you - the anti-feeling is anti-Westminster for many. Adam made the point about the younger generation being loudest callers for independence. Why may that be? Look back to the 1980s and Thatcherism - her government closed coal mines, steelworks, docks, introduced unwanted privatization and the fatal poll tax a lot of which the most expensive poll taxes were in Scotland. Bring it on to the Blair years and lies, scandals and going to war on falsehoods and this young generation of Scots have all lived through that or brought up in those times. All Westminster-based decisions - nothing, naff all to do with anti-English but anti-Westminster sentiment - a big differenct there. Anti-English suggests a hatred or ill-sentiment towards English people. If that really existed do you really think half a million English people would live in Scotland? Anti-Westminster is the sentiment whereas Westminster decides on issues that are best for Britain whilst Scots want a government that gives us what is best for Scotland.

Why were those industries closed?

I would also like to point out in my constituency, snp was elected. Roughly 22000 to 20000 for lib dem. by the time you have added in labour and Tories votes, the vote would be roughly 60% against snp or anti Westminster if you will.

I would think that many other areas would be the same.

Adam D wrote:Why were those industries closed?

That is now not the issue though it is the point that people in Scotland are not anti-English for pursuing independence as Shahenshahg intimated but are anti-Westminster. I suppose you could also say that feeling has snowballed a bit more with more powers given to the Scottish parliament. And lets not forget that sentiment is slowly growing in England as they seek alternative options to Labour and Conservative in the form of UKIP. Across the UK (not just Scotland) people have had enough of the same old same old. The last two elections show that as one returned with no majority for any party and followed by one with a wafer thin majority for one whilst a new party on the block (outwith Scotland) in the form of UKIP has become the third largest and is growing in size. The political landscape in this country has changed forever.

During the referendum I was sick and tired of uneducated youths spouting out in public places about Thatcherism.

None of them had been born when the things they moaned about and apparently were the cause for revolution. All of them swore like it was going out of fashion. The truth is, that I have no problem with people wanting independence for the right reasons.

Many of my friends voted for the snp (I personally don't get why) and at least they had reasons. But all of the people I know who had a reasonable education and have decided to try and get a proper career, could see the pitfalls of seperation.

Is it any surprise that all the people asked for soundbite a on the news, were generally either students (who will protest any eatablishment) or people who had not seen a days work in the last 10 years.

I personally feel embarassed to be living in Scotland when I see these people on the news as a representation of a fine and beautiful country.