Independence - how would you vote?

[archie guevara]

With respect, calling your opponents Tories, thick and uneducated is hardly going to persuade the mibees aye, mibees naw voters, is it? There is a case for being made for a conservative Scotland, for example.

Yeah sorry, I should have added a fourth category. Buggered if I know what it is though.

[archie guevara]

Sounds a little negative to me. Can't be though, because that's not in the Nationalist lexicon

Oh it's there OK, usually reserved for facepalm moments like Ian Davidson on Scotland Tonight last night. I'm willing to bet that 32% of the electorate (or whatever percentage the Scotsman cherry picks next week) along with a good number of don't knows were watching through their fingers last night.

[DeeGas]

Of course they will, they are a political party with an agenda. A very significant agenda. They are no better and no worse than any other party in that regards. That's how all political parties work.

Agreed,fair play.

It's gonna get dirty ennit.

[the jambo-rocker]

Yeah sorry, I should have added a fourth category. Buggered if I know what it is though.

Most people just refer to it as Miscellaneous.

[xbl]

Ah yes, trenchant Unionism disguised as above the fray neutrality, it must be a Savage Henry post! Still, some good points in there!

I'm not as impressed as you are with Salmond's oratory skills, but it's unquestionably a good thing that Cameron isn't debating him. As Cameron himself says, this is an entirely Scottish decision, it is the role of the Scottish Better Together campaign to defend their position, if Cameron waded in the same Yes folk who want him to debate would accuse him of interfering. I'm actually surprised - and pleased - by how little he's had to say on the matter. Things may change before too long, but for the moment he seems to content to treat this as entirely devolved issue. He's here because as things stand he's the prime minister of this country. He's not popular in Scotland, obviously, but support for independence doesn't go up just because he visits, it's the same people shouting louder.

I agree with a lot of this post. For a start, I'm not convinced that Alex Salmond is as good in debate as people like to say. He's forceful and commanding, which is good, but his command over detail can occasionally leave him vulnerable. Also, he has PR people telling him not to be smug and commanding, which is his natural style, meaning he sometimes appears a bit weak and flat. He sometimes struggles with that conflict between what his instincts are, and what his PR instructions are.

I think its quite reasonable for David Cameron to not debate Salmond though, he doesn't have to, why should he? By the same token, it is even more reasonable for Salmond not to debate Darling...I mean what does Darling actually DO? What is his exact role?

Self-interest in this case will determine the outcome. Which set-up will be most beneficial for me as an individual, and for my family. This is how the Yes vote can win. By demonstrating that the state of Scotland will be a better basis for my prosperity than the current system. It won't win any votes by playing the emotive Braveheart nationalistic card. Don't treat "the media" as some homogenous decision making entity though.

It says a great deal about a lot of things. Not necessarily all about Cameron, but about the level of political discourse as a whole. If a politician can't walk around a Scottish city for fear of violence, it shows just how deep the antipathy is towards politicians. Salmond doesn't do it either. Look what happened to Two Jags Prescott. It's a bit disingenuous to say Cameron went for a walk about in central Tripoli all by himself though; there will have been tens of heavily armed body guards away from the cameras. Also, Martyr's square is pretty plush.

Now this isn't a go at you personally, but you know, I find it pretty harsh that Scots aren't allowed to invoke one of their legendary heroes without being laughed at. You hear references to Churchillian leadership all the times from the Brits, as well as references to things like Waterloo...why is it okay for the British to invoke legends from history, but not the Scots?

I think you're misunderstanding his point regarding Salmond (or at least, my interpretation is different). Cameron is technically Prime Minister of this country, this should be HIS nation state. So visiting Scotland should be no different from popping up in (say) Yorkshire. But lets face it, it IS different. He is treated like he comes from a far off land, and he treats Scotland like a foreign country. I'm just surprised we didn't have one of those joint press conferences with a Scottish Flag and a British flag beside each other

It isn't a case that he risked violence, more that he was seen as such an outsider, and as so hostile to Scotland, and I find that to be very interesting indeed. Scotland is different.

I think certain elements of the press have been fatally damaged in the last few years anyway. I think the lack of transparency has nothing to do with independence and everything to do with the way certain elements of the media works. I don't know how much, if at all, political bias in newspapers alters voting intention, mind you.

Of course, the added problem is that a lot of this is speculative. I think the coverage, as a whole has been pretty sterile. It takes a long hard look in order to find genuine commentary on the referendum, as opposed to trenchant views and agenda setting.

You know, I know you don't want to say it, but it is much easier than dancing around it. The press is biased. Very biased. Every day there is another scare story, facts are deliberately obscured, the Unionist side is pandered too, and even the BBC have explicitly stated that they don't need to be biased. The Unionists dominate the press, and it stops the Yes campaign getting their message out. You're not a stupid man, you know how this stuff works, and I find it somewhat insulting that you think you can get away with that dancing round the issue nonsense. Nobody is saying that the Scotsman saying Yes will cause people to change their mind, but if the papers uniformly put out lies and scaremongering, and suppress the truth, then a lot of people who don't go looking for the facts won't get them.

This isn't a "both sides as bad" thing either. This is a Unionist thing. Do you agree?

[H_B]

I'm not sure a debate ever achieves anything in Britain anyway.

After all, Nick Clegg did very well, by most accounts, in the leaders' debates before the last general election, to the point where people genuinely expected the LDs to do extremely well, and they didn't.

Are many undecideds or even Yes/No voters going to watch a debate? And of the latter, are they going to fanboy their way through it anyway and pretend their guy won regardless?

[Savage Henry]

Ah yes, trenchant Unionism disguised as above the fray neutrality, it must be a Savage Henry post! Still, some good points in there!I agree with a lot of this post. For a start, I'm not convinced that Alex Salmond is as good in debate as people like to say. He's forceful and commanding, which is good, but his command over detail can occasionally leave him vulnerable. Also, he has PR people telling him not to be smug and commanding, which is his natural style, meaning he sometimes appears a bit weak and flat. He sometimes struggles with that conflict between what his instincts are, and what his PR instructions are.

I think its quite reasonable for David Cameron to not debate Salmond though, he doesn't have to, why should he? By the same token, it is even more reasonable for Salmond not to debate Darling...I mean what does Darling actually DO? What is his exact role?

Now this isn't a go at you personally, but you know, I find it pretty harsh that Scots aren't allowed to invoke one of their legendary heroes without being laughed at. You hear references to Churchillian leadership all the times from the Brits, as well as references to things like Waterloo...why is it okay for the British to invoke legends from history, but not the Scots?

I think you're misunderstanding his point regarding Salmond (or at least, my interpretation is different). Cameron is technically Prime Minister of this country, this should be HIS nation state. So visiting Scotland should be no different from popping up in (say) Yorkshire. But lets face it, it IS different. He is treated like he comes from a far off land, and he treats Scotland like a foreign country. I'm just surprised we didn't have one of those joint press conferences with a Scottish Flag and a British flag beside each other

It isn't a case that he risked violence, more that he was seen as such an outsider, and as so hostile to Scotland, and I find that to be very interesting indeed. Scotland is different.You know, I know you don't want to say it, but it is much easier than dancing around it. The press is biased. Very biased. Every day there is another scare story, facts are deliberately obscured, the Unionist side is pandered too, and even the BBC have explicitly stated that they don't need to be biased. The Unionists dominate the press, and it stops the Yes campaign getting their message out. You're not a stupid man, you know how this stuff works, and I find it somewhat insulting that you think you can get away with that dancing round the issue nonsense. Nobody is saying that the Scotsman saying Yes will cause people to change their mind, but if the papers uniformly put out lies and scaremongering, and suppress the truth, then a lot of people who don't go looking for the facts won't get them.

This isn't a "both sides as bad" thing either. This is a Unionist thing. Do you agree?

You know, not that it's any of your business, but you've never once asked me how I intend to vote. You presume, using your black and white - if you aren't with us you're against us - logic , to know how I'm going to vote and what I believe in. You presume to be able to judge, and that your reading of my posts indicates my political views. You genuinely have no idea, but yet you start your post like that. Still some good points in there.

The reason people invoke Churchill is because they wish to invoke a myth. Churchill was a deeply flawed character who happened to be Prime Minister when the country won the war. Bringing up William Wallace (and actually, it's more Braveheart that gets brought up than Wallace) as a reason for Independence is no more relevant - or likely to persuade, which is the point - than the Better Together lot making reference to Churchill. I have no idea if they do or not, but it would be a nonsense if they did. The point is people need convinced if the Yes vote is to win. Braveheart style emotivism won't persuade any undecideds, any more than reference to the Battle of Britain will. That's the point.

Of course the press is biased. There's no such thing as objective journalism; it's a fine principle but in reality it doesn't happen. And those biases are multiplied when we go out of our way to look for it. It's always there though. I still don't know how much it affects voting intention. And, of course, because most of the newspapers share a non-separatist stance, there will be more of a slant agin than for. That's the way things are, that's the way the balance of political opinion lies. Very few institutions are value -neutral, but the BBC general does a pretty good job (relative to the newspapers) in reflecting debate. This is not the same as being neutral - for the reasons I'll give - but by and large I think the BBC is one of the less slanted institutions in this regard.

Look, you opened your post accusing me of being a unionist. Is that a lie? I realise you aren't a newspaper, but it certainly isn't true. Truth should almost always come in the plural form. In this particular debate, there are myriad truths. Presenting one side is not suppressing the other, it's a determined choice which you or I might not agree with, but that's different from saying, "lets not let the other side speak". Politics is not a conspiracy theory, it's much more subtle than that.

If Salmond did turn up electioneering in Yorkshire (cut to a picture of Yorkshire: "why always me?") it would look fairly ridiculous, not because of Salmond himself but because he has no mandate there at all. For better or worse - largely for worse - Cameron does have a mandate in Govan. It's a damning indictment of everyone involved if, as you say, because he is an outsider Cameron is therefore dangerous to Scotland. I don't think that's what you mean though, right? In terms of political institutions, there's no question that Westminster is seen as secondary to Holyrood. Great Britain absolutely is not a nation state though. I'm not even sure it's a nation anymore. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Colkitto]

It says a great deal about a lot of things. Not necessarily all about Cameron, but about the level of political discourse as a whole. If a politician can't walk around a Scottish city for fear of violence, it shows just how deep the antipathy is towards politicians. Salmond doesn't do it either. Look what happened to Two Jags Prescott. It's a bit disingenuous to say Cameron went for a walk about in central Tripoli all by himself though; there will have been tens of heavily armed body guards away from the cameras. Also, Martyr's square is pretty plush.

Cameron was willing to walk about Martyr's Square, he wasn't in George Square. The Prime Minister of the UK isn't prepared to walk about one of the largest cities in the UK because he and his party are so unpopular. Yet he preaches to us here in Scotland that we are all one big happy family within the UK and his actions prove he's talking bollocks.

Salmond has and does walk freely about towns and cities in Scotland. In fact he passed me on the street in my home town at the last election.

[xbl]

You know, not that it's any of your business, but you've never once asked me how I intend to vote. You presume, using your black and white - if you aren't with us you're against us - logic , to know how I'm going to vote and what I believe in. You presume to be able to judge, and that your reading of my posts indicates my political views. You genuinely have no idea, but yet you start your post like that. Still some good points in there.

The reason people invoke Churchill is because they wish to invoke a myth. Churchill was a deeply flawed character who happened to be Prime Minister when the country won the war. Bringing up William Wallace (and actually, it's more Braveheart that gets brought up than Wallace) as a reason for Independence is no more relevant - or likely to persuade, which is the point - than the Better Together lot making reference to Churchill. I have no idea if they do or not, but it would be a nonsense if they did. The point is people need convinced if the Yes vote is to win. Braveheart style emotivism won't persuade any undecideds, any more than reference to the Battle of Britain will. That's the point.

Of course the press is biased. There's no such thing as objective journalism; it's a fine principle but in reality it doesn't happen. And those biases are multiplied when we go out of our way to look for it. It's always there though. I still don't know how much it affects voting intention. And, of course, because most of the newspapers share a non-separatist stance, there will be more of a slant agin than for. That's the way things are, that's the way the balance of political opinion lies. Very few institutions are value -neutral, but the BBC general does a pretty good job (relative to the newspapers) in reflecting debate. This is not the same as being neutral - for the reasons I'll give - but by and large I think the BBC is one of the less slanted institutions in this regard.

Look, you opened your post accusing me of being a unionist. Is that a lie? I realise you aren't a newspaper, but it certainly isn't true. Truth should almost always come in the plural form. In this particular debate, there are myriad truths. Presenting one side is not suppressing the other, it's a determined choice which you or I might not agree with, but that's different from saying, "lets not let the other side speak". Politics is not a conspiracy theory, it's much more subtle than that.

If Salmond did turn up electioneering in Yorkshire (cut to a picture of Yorkshire: "why always me?") it would look fairly ridiculous, not because of Salmond himself but because he has no mandate there at all. For better or worse - largely for worse - Cameron does have a mandate in Govan. It's a damning indictment of everyone involved if, as you say, because he is an outsider Cameron is therefore dangerous to Scotland. I don't think that's what you mean though, right? In terms of political institutions, there's no question that Westminster is seen as secondary to Holyrood. Great Britain absolutely is not a nation state though. I'm not even sure it's a nation anymore. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Go on then, how will you be voting? I know nothing about you personally, I don't judge you personally, and in other posts you've made on other topics, I agree with you at times and say so, just like I do with posters like Reynard and HB. It is, as always, just good business. But I judge you purely on your posts on each topic, and I don't think you've ever posted anything that has me thinking you will be anything other than a solid yes...

And to an extent, I agree that references to Churchill and Wallace aren't going to win the day, but there is certainly going to be an element of heart over head decision making. My personal view is that this will be far more significant than dull economic matters. I'm not talking about Wallace and Braveheart style calls here, but there is going to be a large place for pointing out that Scotland is a nation and not a province. Also, as I pointed out, this isn't a both sides as bad thing. The No camp have only stopped fearmongering to have brief breaks to bang the drum for glorious Britain. "Churchill, Nelson, the Empire, the Olympics, Land of Hope and Glory"!. It does irk me that it is deemed by many as perfectly okay, whereas if it was Scotland...

And the media IS as simple as you say. You have a full right of reply on here, and I try to consider any post you make fully and fairly. I might still disagree with you afterwards, but you have that right of reply. In the Scottish media, this simply isn't the case. There is nothing subtle about it. This is a full on one sided howitzer barrage, and the BBC are possibly THE worst when it comes to not giving both sides coverage. Its been pointed out many times just how unfair the BBC are, they are as subtle as a brick through the window.

Finally, , I think you've missed my point somewhat. An example would be Alex Salmond turning up in Aberdeen, or in Ayrshire, or Shetland, or anywhere else in Scotland. He is First Minister of Scotland, and he can and does pop up where he wants without it being a major thing. David Cameron is Prime Minister of Britain, which means that by extension he is Prime Minister of Scotland. So why is it then that the arrival of Cameron in his own country is greeted like a foreign leader is arriving? Its not that he's dangerous, more that the leader of Britain is seen as a foreigner to Scotland. I hate to quote Jim Murphy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8784204/Jim-Murphy-David-Cameron-treats-Scotland-like-Slovenia.html

Mr Murphy was questioned about the Prime Minister’s attitude to Scotland during an interview with the Spectator magazine.

“He’s got to engage a bit more in Scotland. He’s got to travel a few hundred miles north as well. He’s the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and he shouldn’t behave like a foreign visiting dignitary when he goes to Scotland, which is what the temptation is,” he said.

“He comes up and he stands in front of a British flag and a Scottish flag as if he is visiting Slovenia. Scotland is not bloody Slovenia.”

[DeeGas]

Lovely to hear "hundreds" of local people have turned out near Cumnock,Ayrshire to greet Charlie,Will and Kate.

The strength of our Royal Family is truly heart warming.

Luckily the Scottish people realise full well the SNP and republicans are not to be trusted with our Monarchy.

God save the Queen.

[BarryHills]

Lovely to hear "hundreds" of local people have turned out near Cumnock,Ayrshire to greet Charlie,Will and Kate.

The strength of our Royal Family is truly heart warming.

Luckily the Scottish people realise full well the SNP and republicans are not to be trusted with our Monarchy.

God save the Queen.

Do you think Catholics should be allowed to become King/Queen Deegas?

What about Blacks ?

[Colkitto]

Do you think Catholics should be allowed to become King/Queen Deegas?

What about Blacks ?

What about a Muslim? Was Diana pregnant with Dodi's Muslim child?

[DeeGas]

Well they're already German/Greek,is'nt that enough!

We're all well and truly intergrated these days,Scottish/English,English/Scottish etc.

Same people,same blood,it's a fact.

That's Great Britain for you.

[Savage Henry]

Go on then, how will you be voting? I know nothing about you personally, I don't judge you personally, and in other posts you've made on other topics, I agree with you at times and say so, just like I do with posters like Reynard and HB. It is, as always, just good business. But I judge you purely on your posts on each topic, and I don't think you've ever posted anything that has me thinking you will be anything other than a solid yes...

And to an extent, I agree that references to Churchill and Wallace aren't going to win the day, but there is certainly going to be an element of heart over head decision making. My personal view is that this will be far more significant than dull economic matters. I'm not talking about Wallace and Braveheart style calls here, but there is going to be a large place for pointing out that Scotland is a nation and not a province. Also, as I pointed out, this isn't a both sides as bad thing. The No camp have only stopped fearmongering to have brief breaks to bang the drum for glorious Britain. "Churchill, Nelson, the Empire, the Olympics, Land of Hope and Glory"!. It does irk me that it is deemed by many as perfectly okay, whereas if it was Scotland...

And the media IS as simple as you say. You have a full right of reply on here, and I try to consider any post you make fully and fairly. I might still disagree with you afterwards, but you have that right of reply. In the Scottish media, this simply isn't the case. There is nothing subtle about it. This is a full on one sided howitzer barrage, and the BBC are possibly THE worst when it comes to not giving both sides coverage. Its been pointed out many times just how unfair the BBC are, they are as subtle as a brick through the window.

Finally, , I think you've missed my point somewhat. An example would be Alex Salmond turning up in Aberdeen, or in Ayrshire, or Shetland, or anywhere else in Scotland. He is First Minister of Scotland, and he can and does pop up where he wants without it being a major thing. David Cameron is Prime Minister of Britain, which means that by extension he is Prime Minister of Scotland. So why is it then that the arrival of Cameron in his own country is greeted like a foreign leader is arriving? Its not that he's dangerous, more that the leader of Britain is seen as a foreigner to Scotland. I hate to quote Jim Murphy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8784204/Jim-Murphy-David-Cameron-treats-Scotland-like-Slovenia.html

Right now, now I'm really confused! My vote, as it happens, depends entirely on the matters you dismissed as utterly irrelevant. What part the new Scotland plays in international relations, and whether it can manipulate that role into a balance that focuses less on security and common policy, and more on domestic development.

To answer your other points, surely if Cameron was to keep popping up North he'd be accused of overstepping? I think it's a good thing he doesn't come north very often. An besides, wouldn't you rather he was a foreign dignitary? I thought you felt he already was?

The BBC is, again, presenting the views of individuals. That there are more people presenting the views which oppose yours is only because that is the majority view. It is no less unacceptable for the BBC's editors and opinion givers (there's a word for that which escapes my mind) than it is for a private institution. There's no logical reason that the people who work for the BBC shouldn't express opinions. When someone is paid to express an opinion, there is no such thing as impartiality. You can't have a non-biased opinion. Put it another way, I presume you still pay your license fee? You aren't tied to that. Whatever the BBC does or does not do, you pay your license fee which in effect legitimises their output. Discerning people can identify bias, it always exists. Once you've identified that bias, you can treat the institution accordingly. There's a million different sources people can turn to for their referendum-based analysis. I don't think any one should be forced to some kind of artificial non-bias. Football commentary being the obvious example. People who accuse commentators of bias (often BBC commentators are expected to speak differently to Sky commentators) miss the point entirely.

My point about emotional motivation is not that it's not important, it clearly is, as you yourself have said. It's more that it won't convince anyone to change sides. People with that level of emotional involvement will be far more likely to be firmly in the yes camp already, likewise those with deep-set hatred of David Cameron (as opposed to what he stands for). For the undecided, it's more a case of pragmatism versus risk/reward.

Jim Murphy's a hypocritical arse, and that hypocrisy leads me to automatically dismiss everything he says, frankly. He's in my top five crap politicians, possibly top three.

[DeeGas]

I'm wondering which Royal will open the Scottish Commonwealth Games.

[Paulo Sergio]

Lovely to hear "hundreds" of local people have turned out near Cumnock,Ayrshire to greet Charlie,Will and Kate.

The strength of our Royal Family is truly heart warming.

Luckily the Scottish people realise full well the SNP and republicans are not to be trusted with our Monarchy.

God save the Queen.

[BarryHills]

We're all well and truly intergrated these days,Scottish/English,English/Scottish etc.

Same people,same blood,it's a fact.

That's Great Britain for you.

wee dugs, sausage rolls etc etc..

[Colkitto]

Well they're already German/Greek,is'nt that enough!

We're all well and truly intergrated these days,Scottish/English,English/Scottish etc.

Same people,same blood,it's a fact.

That's Great Britain for you.

So I take it no Catholics/Muslims or blacks?

[invergowrie arab]

Lovely to hear "hundreds" of local people have turned out near Cumnock,Ayrshire to greet Charlie,Will and Kate.

The strength of our Royal Family is truly heart warming.

Luckily the Scottish people realise full well the SNP and republicans are not to be trusted with our Monarchy.

God save the Queen.

Its hard not to feel sorry for the lad. I actually buy the original persona he came into this thread with that he was an outsider looking in with a genuine interest in learning more and chipping in with an opinion here and there. Unfortunately reading the UK press and relying on some old cliches and ideas about the independence debate he quickly found himself floundering and cast adrift in an argument he didnt understand. Lacking the intellectual capacity to catch up the meltdown into some sort of a megatroll, who has not even the wit and good humor of other trolls on thee web has been a sight to behold- and a sad one at that.

[NotThePars]

"Same blood, same people." Inbred b*****ds.