Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, Colkitto said:

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, 1st-5th June 2020:

If Boris Johnson and the UK Government manage to block an independence referendum, do you think that pro-independence parties such as the SNP and the Greens should consider including an outright promise of independence in their manifestos for a future election, to give people an opportunity to vote for or against the idea?

Yes 49%
No 29%

With Don't Knows excluded, it's roughly...

Yes 63%
No 37%

You just know who the "don't knows" are.

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, BawWatchin said:

In that case, everything's an opinion. Like murder being morally wrong. No it isn't! It's just my opinion init?

Eh, no. Maybe read up on morality.

Most of the moral arguments against murder are because effectively all people of sound mind don't want to be murdered. It's generally held to be bad to do something bad to someone that they don't want, without a strong reason based on necessity and proportionality.

There's nothing remotely moral in guessing whether Scotland would be better or worse off after independence.

5 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

From a 'yes' perspective, the bolded part is the problem as I see it. I don't think you'll ever see upwards of 60% consistently for Yes until some of those wealthy 'best for me' types change their stance, and I don't see how that's remotely possible while most honest pro-indi voices are now openly admitting that Indi could be financially rough for a while, and that the people likely to bear the brunt of it are these very same reasonably well off middle class types.

Lets face it, if concerns about democracy, societal fairness, representation etc were actually going to be the pivotal issues on which the Yes/No balance swung, I think we'd have seen a far larger swing in the past five years than the 3-4% the polls are suggesting. If the chaos of post-2015 UK hasn't changed more minds, then putting the 'identity-types' aside, for the rest it can only be about money/wealth and the economy.

Essentially I agree with you regarding the people who believe that leaving the UK would leave us worse off and be detrimental to our society as a whole, but then, if those people are genuinely interested in societal justice and fairness, what are they proposing to do about the current situation? Persisting with Westminster rule and the Union seems like a nonsense, considering it's the status quo that has created an unequal, unfair society in the first place. There's quite clearly no appetite for addressing that stemming from London.

That's a solid assessment. The bottom line will always be that independence is a bit of a leap of faith, and if you feel you have a lot to lose then you really need to have confidence about it. For those who have little to lose and for whom the system doesn't work right now, it's worth a gamble.

It's funny how people on both Yes and No sides don't understand why the numbers haven't moved more. If Brexit and BawJaws weren't enough then you have to wonder. My own theory is that most of it is because the Yes side hasn't persuaded them that it would be financially safe, and their concerns about recent events haven't hit them in the pocket yet. But No voters are much older, so their worry is about pensions, and to them the Scottish Parliament is still new. Below them I strongly feel that there's a big slice of the population who just want to be convinced.

When Ireland gained independence life got worse for the people at the bottom. It doesn't matter whether there's a credible case for that happening here or not, but I'm sure it's what most Scottish Labour voters (what's left of them) fear. 

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, Antlion said:

I absolutely do not believe it describes “most” of the voters of either of these parties - not given those parties’ track records.

Lib Dem and Labour voters genuinely believe their parties are focussed on social justice. Whether that's a reasonable belief is very much open to debate...

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

Eh, no. Maybe read up on morality.

Most of the moral arguments against murder are because effectively all people of sound mind don't want to be murdered. It's generally held to be bad to do something bad to someone that they don't want, without a strong reason based on necessity and proportionality.

There's nothing remotely moral in guessing whether Scotland would be better or worse off after independence.

So what is the moral argument for remaining part of a very right-wing , white nationalist state. Owned and controlled by a fascist Government based in another country?

[Antlion]

48 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Lib Dem and Labour voters genuinely believe their parties are focussed on social justice. Whether that's a reasonable belief is very much open to debate...

I’m sure some still do, but I seriously doubt most do. Both parties have become infested with light Tories (and actual Tories) over the last couple of decades. I can’t think of many, for example, who would have voted for Jo Swinson’s mob believing she and hers were for anything other than self-interest, albeit with some support for the EU adding an attraction.

[BawWatchin]

4 minutes ago, Antlion said:

I’m sure some still do, but I seriously doubt most do. Both parties have become infested with light Tories (and actual Tories) over the last couple of decades. I can’t think of many, for example, who would have voted for Jo Swinson’s mob believing she and hers were for anything other than self-interest, albeit with some support for the EU adding an attraction.

Indeed. The vast bulk of Labour and Lib Dem voters in Scotland don't even like either of those parties and know they're utterly useless. They also know the tories are utterly useless in Scotland, but would still vote for them if they didn't have to vote Labour or Lib Dem to "keep the SNP oot!".

[The_Kincardine]

6 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Essentially I agree with you regarding the people who believe that leaving the UK would leave us worse off and be detrimental to our society as a whole, but then, if those people are genuinely interested in societal justice and fairness, what are they proposing to do about the current situation? Persisting with Westminster rule and the Union seems like a nonsense, considering it's the status quo that has created an unequal, unfair society in the first place. There's quite clearly no appetite for addressing that stemming from London.

Well it would.  The notion of an independent Scotland  outside of the EU and without Mr Barnett's largess is sheer idiocy and I am amazed that posters are continuing this pie in the sky nonsense.

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it would.  The notion of an independent Scotland  outside of the EU and without Mr Barnett's largess is sheer idiocy and I am amazed that posters are continuing this pie in the sky nonsense.

Is that the same Barnett that still sees Scotland's spending budget nearly cut in half compared to what we contribute to the UK treasury in taxation?

How lucky we are to have a Government in another country borrow and spend on our behalf, then shift the debt liability on to us. Whatever would we do without them?

[The_Kincardine]

23 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Is that the same Barnett that still sees Scotland's spending budget nearly cut in half compared to what we contribute to the UK treasury in taxation?

Joke thread for this pish

[Antlion]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it would.  The notion of an independent Scotland  outside of the EU and without Mr Barnett's largess is sheer idiocy and I am amazed that posters are continuing this pie in the sky nonsense.

Who had “too POOR”?

[Boo Khaki]

7 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it would.  The notion of an independent Scotland  outside of the EU and without Mr Barnett's largess is sheer idiocy and I am amazed that posters are continuing this pie in the sky nonsense.

It's perfectly possible to have a weaker overall economy, and yet still have a fairer and more socially just society. It depends on what your spending priorities are, and who you expect to carry most of the burden.

I'm baffled at why people like yourself continually express the view that existing as an independent, self-determining sovereign state is somehow a ridiculous proposition. It's the norm for the vast majority of nations across the planet. It's even more bizarre when you acknowledge the fact that the status quo sees us handing over fiscal control to what is effectively a foreign government, who then saddle us with a load of debt, while telling us it's none of our business how they spent our money or how that debt came about.

If you were proposing two systems of governance for a hypothetical new state, 99% of folk would just laugh at you and tell you to get to f**k if you proposed the later. That truly is "nonsense".

[Benjamin_Nevis]

43 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

I dunno why you guys continue to indulge Kincardine. What happens here is as much his business as it is someone from Timbuktu.

Exactly this. He may once have been worthy of actual debate, but years of pish-ripping over the hilarious demise of his football club have pretty much broken him and we're left with a shambling alcoholic mess who tries and ultimately fails to hide his utter self-hatred for simply being a Scot living in England. He probably apologises to folk for his accent  

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, Day of the Lords said:

Exactly this. He may once have been worthy of actual debate, but years of pish-ripping over the hilarious demise of his football club have pretty much broken him and we're left with a shambling alcoholic mess who tries and ultimately fails to hide his utter self-hatred for simply being a Scot living in England. He probably apologises to folk for his accent  

I reckon if he lived in Scotland, he would still be apologizing for his jakey alcoholic dribbly accent. An absolutely tragic life story indeed.

[NotThePars]

4 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

I dunno why you guys continue to indulge Kincardine. What happens here is as much his business as it is someone from Timbuktu.

His vote has a proportional impact on whether Scotland has another referendum in the near future. He might be completely at it and a mad staunch protestant supremacist but this argument just comes across as you're not sure how to counter his bombastic pish.

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

It's perfectly possible to have a weaker overall economy, and yet still have a fairer and more socially just society. It depends on what your spending priorities are, and who you expect to carry most of the burden.

I'm baffled at why people like yourself continually express the view that existing as an independent, self-determining sovereign state is somehow a ridiculous proposition. It's the norm for the vast majority of nations across the planet. It's even more bizarre when you acknowledge the fact that the status quo sees us handing over fiscal control to what is effectively a foreign government, who then saddle us with a load of debt, while telling us it's none of our business how they spent our money or how that debt came about.

If you were proposing two systems of governance for a hypothetical new state, 99% of folk would just laugh at you and tell you to get to f**k if you proposed the later. That truly is "nonsense".

How honest will the SNP be about spending priorities?  I'm not sure what the independence deficit will be but it has to be more than £3,000 per taxpayer.  What are the plans on recovering this from taxpayers or which services will be cut in your more just society?

We both live in an independent, self-determining sovereign state.  The idiocy is creating a new one.

[GiGi]

30 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

How honest will the SNP be about spending priorities?  I'm not sure what the independence deficit will be but it has to be more than £3,000 per taxpayer.  What are the plans on recovering this from taxpayers or which services will be cut in your more just society?

We both live in an independent, self-determining sovereign state.  The idiocy is creating a new one.

If Scotland as a nation is not getting a government reflective of its overall values and policies then it isn't self-determining and there would be no demand to be so.

Edited June 9, 2020 by GiGi

[aaa]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

How honest will the SNP be about spending priorities?  I'm not sure what the independence deficit will be but it has to be more than £3,000 per taxpayer.  What are the plans on recovering this from taxpayers or which services will be cut in your more just society?

We both live in an independent, self-determining sovereign state.  The idiocy is creating a new one.

 

[sergie's no1 fan]

How honest will the SNP be about spending priorities?  I'm not sure what the independence deficit will be but it has to be more than £3,000 per taxpayer.  What are the plans on recovering this from taxpayers or which services will be cut in your more just society?
We both live in an independent, self-determining sovereign state.  The idiocy is creating a new one.

Idiocy would be to vote to stay in this shit show again with a UK government we did not vote for and haven't voted for in decades.

[The_Kincardine]

6 hours ago, GiGi said:

If Scotland as a nation is not getting a government reflective of its overall values and policies then it isn't self-determining and there would be no demand to be so.

Scotland doesn't vote as a nation.  Some people get the govt. they want and some don't.  That's how every election works.

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Scotland doesn't vote as a nation.  Some people get the govt. they want and some don't.  That's how every election works.

If we could just append, “now shut up and eat your cereal”, this is a banger for the next “Better Together” slogan. Really captures what kind of “union” the UK is without pretending we’re a “family” or a mightily devolved wee region.