CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

White Paper (THE #indyref thread)

(2915 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
  • Latest reply from chdot
  • This topic is closed

1…646566…98

  1. chdot
    Admin

    "They are measuring 39:61 over a fieldwork period from mid-May to mid-July"

    I.e. before 'the debate' which either damaged Yes or made more people realise 'it's not just about Salmond/SNP'.

    But what about the DKs? The Naughtie/Radio4 prog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04d4qpb) - not 'representative' of anything - had about 1/3 of audience saying they were undecided. Several people apologising for not having made up their minds!

    Someone said 'it'll all be decided in the last 2 seconds' - when people had the pencil in their hands.

    (I've said several times, some people will decide when they read the question on the ballot paper).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. slowcoach
    Member

    Scargill: unity through separation?
    Any clues to the basis for his suggestion of yes being marginally ahead ?

    Any update on the ESRC prediction after more the recent spate of polls?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    That's after the don't knows are taken out. Most of them won't vote. All the data I have shows most undecided people being filtered out by any certainty to vote questions. Of the remainder, there's a marginal difference in the split between Yes and No. More Yes than No but not enough to make a difference. They are much less decisive to the outcome than is discussed.

    Part of the problem is that it's in everyone's interest to push the line that it's everything to play for and it's about winning the undecided. It's not. It's actually the impossible job of getting people to switch sides (longitudinal data suggests hardly anyone changes sides) or the very hard job of getting people to vote (either people who say they will but won't or say they won't but will). Turnout, and differential turnout, will be a bigger factor than the undecideds.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "They are much less decisive to the outcome than is discussed."

    That might be right, but it's unknowable.

    This is not 'just another election'.

    (Some) people are genuinely wanting to make their minds up and vote.

    To what extent will only be (slightly) clear on the day after the day.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    Actually

    I'm in the middle of 'conversation' on Twitter about the problems of the CEC 'policy' of 'chicanes with everything'.

    Which (genuinely) bothers me more than which currency (unionised or otherwise) we might be using in a couple of years.

    https://twitter.com/hank_chief/status/499298839384563713

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Instography
    Member

    They're not known but they are estimable. We know, for instance, that across a wide range of elections turnout is lower than survey-based voting intention and that even after discounting people who are less than certain to vote, the actual turnout will be about 10% lower.

    We have a good idea of the extent to which people who say they won't vote might vote and those who say they are certain to vote actually might not.

    We have a good idea of the extent to which there might be changes between voting intentions over time.

    And in each case we have a fairly good idea of the extent to which these apply to each side.

    Of course, our referendum is different but it's not the first time there's been a referendum and there are limits to Scottish exceptionalism.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    In short - 'a Yes vote would be a surprise'.

    I'm prepared to be surprised.

    But I won't be devastated if it's No.

    Might be a bit unsettled if it was 70:30.

    Whatever happens on the 18th, the next couple of years will be 'interesting'.

    I can't predict if there will be more chicanes installed or removed in that time.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Instography
    Member

    Sure, I'd be surprised but you should always be willing to be surprised. At the risk of appearing towards the edges of the spectrum, most of the interest is in the tension between being right - predicting it - and being wrong. Even if you're practically controlled or constrained by data you can want to be surprised. Probabilities are only probabilities. People are predictable but not always compliant.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    Extra data for more confusion -

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-no-lead-at-record-low-1-3507723

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Instography
    Member

    This is the same poll that the Herald was reporting yesterday as an extension of the No lead! The Scotsman is making a new story out of it by focusing on the figures for those certain to vote (which isn't how TNS usually report their data). I suppose you take your story where you can find it. See how Curtice is reporting it. In general, Curtice plays a pretty straight bat, if you want a home counties metaphor.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    @calmac
    Any settlement that leaves us unable to evict nuclear weapons, puts Scottish soldiers into wars picked by Westminster, and could see us dragged in and out of international arrangement, the EU standing chief among them, would never be remotely acceptable to the SNP membership.

    Just getting round to watching Andrew Neil's programme. Listening to Angus Robertson and thinking how easily that Nato position was turned around. That element of the commitment to remove Trident "as soon as possible" seems eminently negotiable. Maybe the only way you'd get that currency union.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    A whole day without any comments!

    Today's curiosity -

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-tory-leaflet-dishonest-1-3510966

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. Instography
    Member

    Sometimes work (actually a day of corporate fun at the beach) gets in the way. Anyway, he did it again. Yesterday, FMQs, answering Ruth Davidson on the currency union (my emphasis),

    I say to Ruth Davidson that, on September 18, if people in Scotland vote for what is in the white paper and the proposals to keep the pound, that is exactly what will happen

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    It's not in the Wite Paper, but it was discussed in the Parly yesterday. Scottish Green Party's Citizen's Income paper. Social security without the stigma in an independent Scotland? Have a look.

    Download here.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Anyway, he did it again."

    Oh well, "if people in Scotland vote" No, AS can take the blame.

    “The uncertainty about the future means people must think very carefully when they’re voting No.”

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-mcleish-no-vote-warning-1-3510608

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. Instography
    Member

    I like it. The amounts seem little different from current levels. I guess it's designed to minimise gains and losses. Otherwise it's not immediately clear why pensioners get £15k and the single mum £10k.

    There would be a political problem justifying the state giving people like me £300 a week even though that would be less than the combined personal allowances. But still, those spending to save ideas are a hard sell since the public don't believe in back-office savings.

    On that basis, it's hard to see why you would need a benefits system at all. It would be more efficient to use a modified tax system and the system of tax allowances to either give personal allowances or make payments. The HMRC system of real time information means it is very responsive to changes in circumstances.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    Citizen's income idea has been around for a while, but I think it *could* happen in an independent Scotland (no chance in UK).

    "Otherwise it's not immediately clear why pensioners get £15k and the single mum £10k."

    Isn't that for two pensioners?

    "those spending to save ideas are a hard sell since the public don't believe in back-office savings"

    Not sure they ever get to 'the public'. Problem is civil servants/politicians. Try discussing 'savings to the NHS (in future years) by spending money on active travel'...

    Meanwhile in America -

    "

    Bringing wealth under democratic accountability—rather than making everyone a tiny capitalist—has to be an essential part of any equality agenda.

    "

    http://www.thenation.com/article/180834-why-its-time-take-our-basic-needs-market

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. Instography
    Member

    Yeah, two pensioners need £15k. Single mother with two kids needs £10k. Not obvious why.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    In contrast -

    "

    If you ask congressional conservatives about their plan to revive the economy, you're not likely to get a very detailed answer, since they tend to doubt that the government is the solution—to a bad economy or anything else. But the neoliberal philosopher king of Capitol Hill, Representative Paul Ryan, has rolled out a plan to reduce government and reduce poverty simultaneously. He calls it "Expanding Opportunity in America"—and he plans to do it by shrinking what's left of the welfare state.

    "

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/181290-paul-ryans-welfare-reform-ideas-are-even-worse-you-think

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    "Not obvious why"

    Ok

    Details important, (maybe that was for the SP - more per child?) getting the principle agreed/implemented is the problem!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    It is a magic white paper and the things in it will happen by magic in a hypothetical world where enough people have a bout of collective decision making based on hope, blind faith, belief in unfulfillable promises etc

    Will feed back later from the love in C-stone

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "things in it will happen by magic in a hypothetical world"

    All true. So where is your Plan B?

    More of the same isn't an option (even if it was desirable).

    All the leaders of the 'UK' and Scottish No parties say 'vote No and well give you, er, something. In fact you're already getting more somethings because we just put a bill through Westminster.'

    We want facts/answers/hope!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. crowriver
    Member

    @gembo, if you want never-never land look no further than the Westminster parties' "pledges" on more powers for Scotland following a No vote.

    @a'body, I received my polling card today. In just over a month's time we'll be voting in what is an incredibly important referendum. I'm hopeful that the result will be more like 1997's referendum than 1979. Though it should be remembered Scotland did vote Yes in 1979, the vote was rigged so that it was nearly impossible to 'win' unless the result was No. Here's how the media spun the result back then: shameful display really looking back. Remember also what was inflicted upon Scots in the years after 1979 by a government that saw us as political enemies. We have an opportunity here, we ought to take it, rather than be cowed by the doom mongers who want to hold onto power. And they will try, however they can.

    A story that may have escaped your attention recently: Canon Kenyon Wright warns of Westminster No vote 'revenge'. In case you don't remember, he was the chair of the Consitutional Convention which led to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. crowriver
    Member

    two pensioners need £15k. Single mother with two kids needs £10k. Not obvious why.

    I suppose details like this could be ironed out. However I'm basing my assumptions on the approach outlined in the paper, which outlines three entitlements:

    1. £50 per week for each child under 16
    2. £100 per week for each adult of working age.
    3. £150 per week for each adult of pensionable age.

    I think the idea is that even single parents may want to work, given the chance. This system presents no obstacles to doing that, other than the obvious: childcare. That is though a separate issue, like housing costs, disability, etc. Pensioners ought not to be obliged to work, hence the higher rate.

    There would be a political problem justifying the state giving people like me £300 a week

    Presumably £100 would be paid to your partner rather than you, possibly £200 if they were designated as parent/guardian of the two children at £50 each.

    I don't see the political problem. The proposal means everyone receives a basic income, but also everyone has the opportunity to earn more, everyone needs to contribute in taxes too. An old Marxist like you ought to remember this principle. It went something like: "From each according to his abilities; To each according to his needs."

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. crowriver
    Member

    "I just cannot get enough of the Scottish referendum debate. On every side the unthinkable is thought, the unsayable said. "

    Rather refreshing to hear that. From the article below.

    "The case for Trident is absurd. Scotland may help us get rid of it
    Prestige, not defence, is the only reason to keep this £100bn albatross.     "

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. gembo
    Member

    There was some love in C-stone

    Also Jim sillars as the Nats are targeting our canvassing

    With six. Vehicles all driven by one person and the big Margo mobile.

    How we danced to the proclaimers blaring from their speakers, gave them a cheery wave as their motorcade drove by without stopping.

    Definitely the nats no greens or the other individual.

    Good story from the street - apparently A Salmond was doing FMPQs and said the answer to the Q was on page xyz of the white paper and when you looked up page xyz it was blank.

    Always bluffing Alex

    My plan b is to take the love to England to spread the joy of living already in a collegiate Scottish landscape over the border to the brethren in the north. No tuition fees, no selling your house to pay for parents care, increase in taxation.

    Need to vote Gembo for that as I am my own party. Republicans For No

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. crowriver
    Member

    Greens are campaigning on High Street in Portobello today. Ayrshire too, apparently. Possibly elsewhere also today, not sure.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    Canon Kenyon Wright again, this time in the Hootsmon.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. gembo
    Member

    Had an interesting talk with a Yes woman on her door step in Clovenstone

    She was yes and we were having a good chat, then she said But do you want the English telling you what to do. I said, err the English, what do you mean. she said it was a slip of the tongue,she meant Westminster.

    I am not saying she was a latent xenophobe but I could hear her ranting as I proceeded up the stairwell from her door at no 2 to the top at no 7 and back down. She was inside her house. I am afraid I may have wound her up.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. crowriver
    Member

    "Police face 'a hammering' if Scotland votes No, say former officers"

    "The people of Scotland need only to look at the way policing in England and Wales is being hammered by this Coalition - and we all know that, in the event of a No vote, Scotland will be next for a hammering."

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…646566…98

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin