CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
closed@crowriver
When Nicola Sturgeon tweets percentages based on those 22 as evidence of a move to Yes, that's dishonest because it implies something more general that the 'data' cannot support. When someone says something and you say 'that's interesting' that makes it no more than an interesting comment.
What's the problem with that?
What's the problem with that?
The media have been falling over themselves to spin the whole affair as a triumph for Darling, Bitter Thegether, and declared the 'undecideds' even more 'undecided' following the debate. All based on subjective 'analysis' by self-declared 'non-partisan' Referendum correspondent Allan Little (Beeb Scotchland)* and his equivalent (blatantly partisan) at ITN (can't recall her name). Also based on the statements to camera of ten folk in Glesca and The Kingdom (the other two were one Yes and one No).
Bitter Thegether have then seized on the ICM poll and the media analysts comments as "proof" that Darling 'won' the debate.
So that's just "interesting", Insto?
* - So non-partisan that on Scotland 2014 last night he referred to Yessers as "the nationalists" and Noers as "the Better Together campaign". To her credit, Sarah Smith corrected his error by referring to "the Yes Scotland campaign" shortly afterwards. However you could tell from the slightly embarrassed expressions from her and even Brian Taylor that Mr. Little had let the cat out of the bag. The fact that he then went on to laud Darling's "win" and insist "the burden of proof" was with the independence supporters merely reinforced the disingenuity of his "non-partisan" disclaimer preceding these comments.
@crowriver
'Bitter Thegether' ... really?
... and insist "the burden of proof" was with the independence supporters ...
Is that not true, though? If you want to change the status quo then you have to convince people of the benefits of that change.
@galaxy, aye.
On further googoling it would appear Allan Little is BBC (London/UK) Special correspondent on devolution, referendum and Scottish affairs, rather than part of the BBC Scotland setup per se. I knew of him previously as a Foreign Correspondent, in which role he is well known.
He is also apparently a Gallovidian, a "family friend" of Kirsty Wark, and partner of Sheena McDonald. Given these connections it's a fair bet he's a confirmed Labour man.
This is the same journalist who produced the rather good 'Thatcher and the Scots' documentary in 2009. I can only assume he's a devolutionist, rather than an independence supporter. However unlike Brian Taylor's more even handed apprach, Little can't seem to prevent his political bias from spilling into his analyses. Which would be okay, if he hadn't announced he was "non-partisan". It is obvious he is anything but.
As the men in suits and ties spoke at each other last night I had a duck ragù in a low oven.
Star anise, cloves, allspice and coriander.
A friend who hales from Ulster but lives here is coming for referendum chat. She's undecided and an accountant. Should be more illuminating than the dull glow of the telescreen. I'll shred the duck into the sauce tonight and maybe, just maybe, make fresh pappardelle.
@PS "If you want to keep the status quo then you have to convince people of the benefits of no change."
FTFY
In any case, you presume that a No vote = no change. AFAICS the Westminster agenda for 2015 and beyond involves plenty of change, much of it unwelcome change at that.
"If you want to keep the status quo then you have to convince people of the benefits of no change."
Not really.
"Given these connections it's a fair bet he's a confirmed Labour man."
They also have friends in the SNP and non-party ones who will be voting yes.
@chdot, aye but if he was a Yesser there's no way he would come out with "the nationalists". Using that turn of phrase is shorthand for "I'm a diehard Labour supporter, No voter and I hate the SNP". Indeed the only other folk I've heard using "the nationalists" on television to describe the Yes campaign are Labour MPs/MSPs and Labour spin doctors. Brian Taylor sometimes uses it as do assorted BBC Scotland reporters, but only usually to describe the SNP rather than the Yes campaign overall.
It appears to be a deliberate policy of language choice too. A term of disparagement or dismissal usually spat out like a bad taste in the mouth with as poisoned an expression of contempt as the speaker can muster. Designed no doubt to associate voting Yes with voting for the SNP and "nationalism" in general. Thus implying that Labour are not (UK) nationalists, but rather internationalists and (perhaps) socialists. Aye, right.
The SNP have a similar term of disparagement: "the unionists" or "the unionist parties". However Allan Little did not use either of those terms (unlike his colleague Brian Taylor), instead he referred to "the Better Together campaign" in the same sentence as he had described the Yes campaign as "the nationalists". So I call a Labour partisan out from behind his he-doth-protest-too-much "non-partisan" claims.
From the (SNP) Minister
"
Michael Russell (@Feorlean)
26/05/2014 19:00
Best report on Euro Poll in Scotland I have heard ( or read )all day from Alan Little on BBC Radio 4 - intelligent, fair , accurate.
"
@chdot, this is why I was a bit shocked at this slip into the language of Labour politicians from someone whose past journalism has much to commend it. An unguarded (Freudian) revelation perhaps in a moment of live TV amongst friendly colleagues.
Mind you Paxo was a Tory and yet still made a good presenter and journalist. I could put Little's momentary slip down as just that, a rare moment of unprofessional partisanship, if it were not for him (overcompensating) declaring beforehand "From a non-partisan standpoint..." so ostentatiously. Then basically coming down on the side of Darling to boot.
Maybe it's just the question of independence that makes him lose his cool professionalism...
@crowriver
Sorry, I don't understand how your complaints about the coverage from all the TV channels is relevant to my views on the use of data.
This thread seems to be disintegrating into internecine factionalism following a below par performance from Alex salmond. Widely tipped to wipe floor with darling and instead at best scoring nil nil draw in hopeless non-debate.
Regardless of result on 18th sept we need to try to build a consensus for forward thinking in Scotland and reaching out to our neighbour England to help them rid their country of UKIP etc.
Good people on the nationalist side need to consider how to be positive in defeat, should that be the outcome . Using the energy and positiveness to help Scotland and rest of UK rather than falling out. Edinburgh has a coalition between labour and SNP, this can work.
@Insto, I was referring to your criticism of one media source (Wings Over Scotland) and apparently Nicola Sturgeon for "dishonest" analysis based on 22 'undecided' folk's stated views in an ICM poll; then contrasting your position on that with your milder, more forgiving attitude towards various other media (mostly televisual) analysis of the stated views of fewer than a dozen 'undecided' folk in two locations.
@gembo, This thread seems to be disintegrating into internecine factionalism
Och awa'. It's been like that for months around here. "The debate" has just given posters something else to kvetch about.
Good people on the nationalist side need to consider how to be positive in defeat, should that be the outcome .
I'm sure those "good people" are capable of making their own minds up about how to behave if the vote is No come 19th September. Of course, the vote could be Yes. Have the "good people on the unionist side" considered how they will behave in that event?
Then you are quite mistaken since I didn't refer to how any other media had used any other information. And actually originally hadn't referred to either Wings over Scotland (which I don't usually read) or Nicola Sturgeon (whose tweet I had seen). My originally comment was in response to your post. I had already been over the ICM data (it is my job after all) and seen the responses on Twitter and seen how Yes Scotland was spinning it. But you'll maybe have noticed that I never comment on spin or bullshit until it's brought here (and I suspect Morningsider has a similar position of not initiating discussion of issues close to his real life but only addressing factual or technical inaccuracies when they are raised here by someone else. Maybe explains why we replied more or less simultaneously). I made a general point, drawing, clearly, on the Yes spin, that to generalise from 22 people, using percentages, is dishonest. Only because you raised it. You then asked me how I'd interpret views by individuals and I answered. Perhaps you were thinking of all those other media. I wasn't.
But, having seen a little of the BBC's five undecided voters at no point in the bits I saw did they try to present them as more than five undecided voters. They didn't call them a representative sample of undecided voters or claim that their, clearly deliberately diverse, opinions represented anything beyond those people. If they had (or if they did) and if anyone had clearly asked then I would have considered it dishonest (as bad, but not worse than Nicola's, if that matters).
In the end that's what Nicola Sturgeon (and Wings) does with the 22 undecided from the ICM poll and what the BBC, as far as I know, didn't do. So, even in retrospect, if I need to take some kind of responsibility for all of the media, I'd stand by my original view.
But since we're here now, let's consider what Wings' analysis of these 22 undecideds tells us (and credit where it's due - he posted his "analysis" just after midnight. Nicola had to wait until her SPAD woke up, did their "research" and checked that it was OK to tweet that on her behalf. And incidentally, how worrying is that? That serious people, that the deputy FM of Scotland, a putative heartbeat away from running an independent Scotland (and you too it seems) has their "analysis" led by the Rasputin of Bath?).
It tells us that those undecideds think Salmond won but on the essential question of how they will vote in the referendum they remain undecided. Yay! He won the debate but didn't win them. That's a victory, of sorts. So, of the original undecideds most of them migrated to No and the remaining undecideds who, on the basis of the debate, think Salmond won, remain undecided. Well done. Is that really the only stat that matters? Suggests three people at least, have a limited grasp of stats.
But even if that were what matters, getting 70-odd percent of the undecideds wouldn't be enough. Yes needs all of them plus it needs to convert No voters. And if Yes can't get all the undecideds, it needs more No voters. This is the simple electoral arithmetic. If the current position is 40, 53, 7 then converting the 7 gets closer (47,53) but still doesn't get a majority. Getting 55% or 70% of them? Well. Game over. You need at least 10% + 1. And then you need to get all of them out on the day.
(and you too it seems) has their "analysis" led by the Rasputin of Bath?)
I never claimed it was my analysis or even that my thinking on the referendum has been influenced by it. What I said was:
"These are the results of that ICM snap poll trotted out by the media after last night's debate (which I didn't watch, I was on a train at the time). Despite the mainstream media spin that Darling 'won' the debate (ie. the No voters outnumbered Yes voters 53/47), amongst the 'don't knows' Salmond apparently 'won' by a huge margin."
Here's what you said: "The number of undecided people at the outset in their sample was only 49 so basing anything on it is heroic. Basing any conclusions on the ones who remained undecided after the debate (22 people) is dishonest."
So, effectively you were disagreeing with WoS' analysis (or the Rasputin of Bath if you prefer), which is your right. How then is it so problematic for me to point to the analyses and conclusions made by mainstream television, based on that same poll and their own (unrepresentative, unweighted, self-selecting, vox pop) sample of 'undecided' folk?
"They didn't call them a representative sample of undecided voters or claim that their, clearly deliberately diverse, opinions represented anything beyond those people. "
No, but television doesn't work like that. It's all about implication through juxtaposition. First we have 'experts' and correspondents mulling over the poll figures (with nary a mention of the 'undecideds' in that poll; Then the declaration of said poll results as a victory for Darling and Bitter Thegether; Then statements to the effect Salmond and Yes have failed to persuade the 'undecided' voters; Then cut away to some 'undecided' voters to see what they think: apparently they are nearly all more 'undecided' than ever; Back to the studio, well there you have it, you see we were right all along.
The use of these vox pops (in pretty much the same way by all the news outlets regardless of editorial team or channel) serves to reinforce the analysis/statements made beforehand. The journalists don't have to claim their sample of 'undecideds' is representative (Kirsty Wark was at least honest enough to preface the vox pops with a disclaimer the sample was "completely unscientific"). Television aims for "truth through showing, not telling". It relies upon the "authenticity" of these vox pops (no mention of how or why these folk were selected, who by, etc.) to ground the comments of experts by connecting viewers with "people like us". So, show ordinary people, more 'undecided' after the debate: case proven for the prosecution.
This tried and tested technique of television, relying as it does on juxtaposition, suggestion, implication, relies upon the viewer "closing the loop" of meaning but through the framing of the vox pops by means of leading questions, also by expert comment before and after, tries to determine the meanings read into the doubtless frank statements of the populi*.
This is not, I'm afraid, "news". These are the established techniques of propoganda (call it 'spin' if you want), and every bit as dishonest as the attempt to spin 22 folk's stated views in a survey into a 'win' amongst the 'undecideds'. Indeed, given the relative audience reach of BBC Ten O'Clock news, ITN News at Ten, BBC Scotland news, BBC Scotland 2014, and BBC Newsnight versus the reach of Wings Over Scotland and Nicola Sturgeon's Twitter feed, one can argue the television spin of 'undecided' folk's views is dishonesty on a vastly greater scale than anything done by Yes supporters.
* - Although even there, I noted after seeing the same faces across several news/current affairs programmes in the space of an hour, that as time wore on their statements all grew to resemble each other: they were all starting to agree with each other, even using some of the same phrases, the variation in opinions was being 'ironed out' in the Fife pub in particular. Rather an interesting social effect.
This is getting tedious.
Why don't you invite each other for a ride to the pub.
Yay! He won the debate but didn't win them. That's a victory, of sorts.
Given that the most of the post-debate discussion was about who 'won' the debate (not who had been 'won' to either yes or no), and that Salmond has "failed to win over" the undecideds then frankly it's probably fair enough to point out these figures which contradict the dominant media narrative.
@chdot, first gembo telling Yessers to "behave", now you calling the discussion "tedious".
Either this is a forum for debate (and a thread around the independence referendum) or it's not. I don't see the forum "rules" being transgressed at this current moment so what's the beef?
Last night's duck ragù was a real success. Very tasty, though there was a trace of acidity that I might try to eliminate next time.
Ulster friend's take on referendum very interesting. She left NI to escape their version of unionism and is attracted by the possibilities of a more egalitarian iScotland. She worries about the process of setting up a new state but hasn't fallen for the notion that we, uniquely amongst nations, couldn't organise a currency. We spoke about the possibility that Barnett will end and we will be loaded with debt. We spoke about the theatrical maleness of Westminster. We spoke about what levers might be available to Scots to influence their society after a No vote. We did not attempt to predict the outcome of the referendum. It was a good conversation.
Only second top billing on the state broadcaster's website for the latest output from the No PR apparatus;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28687880
It's very brave of these people to publicise their enthusiasm for 'bonds of citizenship'. I'd expect investigative journalists to be going over their tax affairs for the next few years, a functioning state being so fundamental to citizenship and all that.
"bonds of citizenship", that's a curious one -
"
Bonds of Citizenship is a bold attempt to upend received contours of antebellum constitutional and legal history, and interpretive practice, by braiding legal studies with literary criticism and labor history. There is much here to admire and from which to learn.
"
www,onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12065/full
Bonds of Citizenship: Law and the Labors of Emancipation. By Hoang Gia Phan. New York: New York Univ. Press, 2013. 256 pp. $24.00 paper; $75.00 cloth.
I would not want to stifle debate but would try to respectfully point out that this is a forum principally about commuter cycling in edinburgh.
I am the first to admit that I go off topic and I do have the self awareness to see that I can be tedious.
I don't think i asked anyone to behave or "behave". I don't tend to use quotes but can cope with them. Not so keen when people say a word and then do that thing with their fingers that is smeant to indicate quotation mark.
I thought i had been gently asking pro-indy people to think about a post referendum outcome that is status quo and how we can work together to make things better.
I am able to contemplate an independent scotland, I don't have my bags packed and ready to go south. I hope I could contribute positively if such an outcome occurred.
I do have the feeling that some people have invested so much in this that if the result goes against them it will be traumatic for them and they may not feel like contributing in a positive way.
"I would not want to stifle debate"
Good
"but would try to respectfully point out that this is a forum principally about commuter cycling in edinburgh."
Yes, see (most) other threads.
"I am the first to admit that I go off topic and I do have the self awareness to see that I can be tedious."
Long may this remain a tolerant forum.
"I don't think i asked anyone to behave or "behave"."
That's my 'job'!
"I don't tend to use quotes but can cope with them. Not so keen when people say a word and then do that thing with their fingers that is smeant to indicate quotation mark."
Er, that doesn't work on the internet.
"I thought i had been gently asking"
Gently doesn't always work...
"pro-indy people to think about a post referendum outcome that is status quo and how we can work together to make things better."
I think it's a bit premature - others may or may not agree.
"I am able to contemplate an independent scotland, I don't have my bags packed and ready to go south. I hope I could contribute positively if such an outcome occurred."
Ditto.
"I do have the feeling that some people have invested so much in this that if the result goes against them it will be traumatic for them and they may not feel like contributing in a positive way."
Perhaps, let's wait and see.
I rather wish we'd stick to cycling here and make this a Neverendum Free Zone, unless it's definitely relevant to cycling. There's no shortage of places to argue about currency unions, with great heat and wild insults, if that's your bag.
I'm too lazy to wade through this thread but was there any consensus whether an independent Scotland would have a more enlightened cycling policy than the present set-up, going on past performance by the Scottish government?
"Good people on the nationalist side need to consider how to be positive in defeat, should that be the outcome. Using the energy and positiveness to help Scotland and rest of UK rather than falling out."
Alright, I'll take a swing at that.
The bookies are going for Yes at 40-45%. That's an awful lot of people wanting to actually leave a country, and though there will be carping that losers should lose, that's not my view of democracy. I think a No vote will not be a mandate for the status quo - if there isn't meaningful consitutional change, that No will become a Yes in 10-20 years time.
First, there needs to be an answer to the West Lothian Question. No further devolution/ federalism can be fair with that still hanging. But the simple expedient of banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only legislation could easily lead in future to a UK government not having a majority, or even a mandate, in England.
That cannot possibly work. But there is no general appetite for constitutional change in England; people are unhappy with the system but they don't understand how to fix it. What's needed is a radical redistribution of power to communities, but there's literally no chance of that happening.
It has to happen though, that's England's right in all of this, to prevent the Scottish tail wagging the English dog.
Second, there's the money. Just as legislative competence is on an everything-but basis, so too should taxation. All taxes raised in Scotland - including in Scottish waters - should go to a Scottish exchequer, with maybe some reserved for practical purposes. Then a mechanism for Scotland paying in for shared services should be found. Alternatively, there should be a distinction between state and federal taxes, as in the US, but state taxes here should cover all the costs of the Scottish Government, now and in the future.
Scotland needs to reap its own harvest and ring its own till; and if it wants bigger government than England, which I believe it clearly does, then it needs to pay from it from its own resources. If England wants to cut services, we shouldn't have cuts forced on us on account of Barnett.
Third, there's benefits. Since 1966, Labour have won the vote in general elections England only three times - October '74, to give the minority government a majority; and for Blair over Major and Hague in '97 and '01 respectively, which was a Labour government really in name only. But in every one of those elections Labour won in Scotland, and by increasing margins over the Tories. The difference between how Scotland and England (even the north of England) vote is huge and has never been greater.
I do not believe that the UK government has a sufficient mandate over social policy in Scotland to control benefits. This has to be devolved.
Fourth, immigration. Scotland should be able to give immigrants conditional rights of residence, which do not confer a right to live or work elsewhere in the UK.
Fifth, energy. Energy should be devolved, with cross-border agreements on the national grids.
Sixth, industrial stuff. Company law, insolvency, regulation of financial services, employment law, competition, intellectual property, consumer protection, stuff to do with the internet (reserved in C10 of Schedule 5)... The rationale for it being reserved is weak, so it should be devolved.
Seventh, civil liberties. Scotland should not be hauled out of ECHR by rapid loons like Philip Hammond. We should not have GCHQ recording every email and text message we send or receive, every internet page we visit, and God-knows what else, without the consent of an legislature we chose for ourselves.
Eighth, broadcasting. BBC Scotland should become a free-standing institution, buying programming from the BBC as STV does from the ITV network. It would keep all licence fee money raised in Scotland.
There are other smaller things like the civil service, the crown estate, that kind of thing, that should also be devolved. I also think Scottish MPs should be elected on PR rather than FPTP, which is an utter anachronism in a multi-party democracy like ours. But that's wish-list stuff.
I'd love to include stuff about nuclear weapons and defence, EU membership and international relations, which are strong reasons why I'm voting Yes, but I realise that's impractical inside a country.
I think the majority of Scotland would go for all that, and I don't think the rest of the UK have the right to tell us that we can't have it. We need to start from the position that the people of Scotland remian sovereign, and can't concede that through this referendum.
But I'll bet you this - in the event of a No vote, those additional powers we've been guaranteed will be laughably weak if they come at all, and we'll be voting on this again before long.
"I rather wish we'd stick to cycling here"
Other threads are available
"and make this a Neverendum Free Zone, unless it's definitely relevant to cycling."
Oh it is (the Referendum) - just not enough...!!
@chdot - could you please delete my extra posts? My computer was in semi-freezing mode. Thanks
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts