kenny131 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 my sole reason for voting no was to simply piss off kenny131. seems to have worked well I am patriotic Scot who wanted a country of our own. Disappointed Yes Pissed off No. You on the other hand are just a giro collecting troll. Who will probably have a few red hand tatoos on your arms thinking its cool as fcek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I think in the end it was taken seriously tbh The Yougov poll showed No winning everything bary 25-39 i think. The two polls tell pretty much the same story. Both have their issues, like the poor sample size on Aschroft's 16-17 sample, for example. But YouGov also had a lot of 'missing' respondents in their pre and post samples. Both also had different demarkations for the age groups: Aschroft had 6 to YG's 4, so that affect show many folk from each age group in Aschroft made it into YG's age bins. Either way, the huge difference comes from the 55 and overs. So no, there is a definite change in how folk looked at it once yu got into older demographics and 'other UK' born as well. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that it was currency that produced the drag factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 My guess is that in the years to come No voters will find it hard to look their grandchildren in the eye. And that will be when old people actually care about more than their immediate bubble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I am patriotic Scot who wanted a country of our own. Disappointed Yes Pissed off No. You on the other hand are just a giro collecting troll. Who will probably have a few red hand tatoos on your arms thinking its cool as fcek. you are too good, can i keep you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I've still to see proof that the UK NOT defaulting on THEIR debt would affect our credit rating. Willie Rennie couldn't answer it, can you ? I watched an unbiased American news show who were adamant that Scotland would have a higher credit rating because we have more assets and a higher GDP per capita. Ireland went bust and they still have a higher credit rating. Maybe you can be the first person throughout this entire referendum campaign to prove that the UK NOT defaulting on THEIR debt would affect Scotland's credit rating ? I think it's more about the impression a indy Scotland would have given to international markets by defaulting on what is percived to be their debts even though legally they were rUK's On the issue of currency and unbiased amercians - I think Paul krugman did a series of blogs on it criticisng the Yes Campaign's currency postion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 My guess is that in the years to come No voters will find it hard to look their grandchildren in the eye. And that will be when old people actually care about more than their immediate bubble. Bit defeatist that - by that time we'll be independent because Nicol Sturgen will have come up with the answers needed to win a second referendum no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny131 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 you are too good, can i keep you Think you have had enough it cant be nice, yer dad hanging out the back of you. Tattooing We Are DA Peeopple on yer back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Think you have had enough it cant be nice, yer dad hanging out the back of you. Tattooing We Are DA Peeopple on yer back. this is glorious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I think it's more about the impression a indy Scotland would have given to international markets by defaulting on what is percived to be their debts even though legally they were rUK's On the issue of currency and unbiased amercians - I think Paul krugman did a series of blogs on it criticisng the Yes Campaign's currency postion. So unsubstantiated pish then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 On the issue of currency and unbiased amercians - I think Paul krugman did a series of blogs on it criticisng the Yes Campaign's currency postion. And other economists didn't see a problem with it. This just ends up being a never ending process of "Oh look here's an economist that agrees with my view" because people disagreed with Krugman - not least an article in the FT which featured several economists who advocated a CU. Even Joseph Stiglitz called the UK's stance a bluff. Krugman didn't actually explain why Scotland would be Spain and not, erm, an EU member state that didn't totally collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny131 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 this is glorious Its certainly Cheering me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Its certainly Cheering me up. you seem like you need all the cheering you can get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny131 Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 you seem like you need all the cheering you can get Why I get paid 40k a year doing sweet FA. I`m happy as Craig Whyte the day he bought Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 If only there had been a recent two year period where the topic could be debated at length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 And other economists didn't see a problem with it. This just ends up being a never ending process of "Oh look here's an economist that agrees with my view" because people disagreed with Krugman - not least an article in the FT which featured several economists who advocated a CU. Even Joseph Stiglitz called the UK's stance a bluff. Krugman didn't actually explain why Scotland would be Spain and not, erm, an EU member state that didn't totally collapse. Of course Stiglitz called it a bluff - he was on the SG's commission. These issue wasn't whther or not a currency union was a good idea, the issue is whether Scotland would have got one. I think there were two underdevloped points here form both campaigns point of view. the No camp could have played up staying out of the Euro back in the day more than they did. The Yes camp could have made a bigger deal of the impact on rUK of not having one - but do so would have requred sketching out an alternative position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 If only there had been a recent two year period where the topic could be debated at length. Indeedy - I'm not really interested in reguargiatting the substantive arguments of the campaign. However, if the Yes cammp are serious about winning another referendum, they need to be honest with themselves about what the previous campaign got wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Why I get paid 40k a year doing sweet FA. I`m happy as Craig Whyte the day he bought Rangers.</p> boasts about job on the internet and having a high wage = probably works as table cleaner in Mcdonalds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Indeedy - I'm not really interested in reguargiatting the substantive arguments of the campaign. However, if the Yes cammp are serious about winning another referendum, they need to be honest with themselves about what the previous campaign got wrong. They should certainly have advertised having an extra day's holiday every year - guaranteed vote winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Indeedy - I'm not really interested in reguargiatting the substantive arguments of the campaign. However, if the Yes cammp are serious about winning another referendum, they need to be honest with themselves about what the previous campaign got wrong. I'll be honest with you. 97% of the print press, all the broadcast media and large corporations and world leaders threw their weight behind Westminster and made a laughing stock of democracy. There's your truth Bants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I'll be honest with you. 97% of the print press, all the broadcast media and large corporations and world leaders threw their weight behind Westminster and made a laughing stock of democracy. There's your truth Bants. So the Yes campaign did nothing wrong? There is nothing they should have doen differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.