|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 7 Sep 08:33
Looking good for SNP.
UKGE predicted to win 50+ Seats at least with the latest poll showing SNP taking all 13 spineless Tory seats. ( Think they will hang on to two or three ).
Mario’s Labour Party will be completely wiped out and deservedly so.
Every age group is now in favour of independence with the exception of the British brainwashed elderly despite their pensions being the worst in the developed world .......must be the Dunkirk spirit the blitz mentality that keeps them going eh......how sad.
When is Peak SNP again? I am sure I have heard of this phenomenon for two or three years now, not sure if it actually exists though? A bit like Nessie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 7 Sep 08:38
And the indicators suggest the people of Scotland would definitely say yes this time...Oh, they don't. Bugger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sat 7 Sep 08:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 7 Sep 11:23
Mind BigJ the result of any independence referdum doesn't matter. It is the confirmation referdum regarding the deal we reach with the rUK that will count. By the time all the negotiations are done we might just decide to forget the whole thing and keep things the way they are.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sat 7 Sep 11:51
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sat 7 Sep 09:32
How old are you again desparado ?
A few years older than you obviously....judging by your reaction...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Sat 7 Sep 13:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sat 7 Sep 13:36
"Mind BigJ the result of any independence referdum doesn't matter. It is the confirmation referdum regarding the deal we reach with the rUK that will count. By the time all the negotiations are done we might just decide to forget the whole thing and keep things the way they are."
If we're to believe the Press (yeah, I know) negotiations are done and the EU simply will not budge. Therefore we really have 3 choices - each of which will cause some kind of trouble.
We revoke Article 50 and stay, we leave without a deal or we bring back May's "deal" and see if it can get through Parliament.
I'd just as soon see Article 50 revoked though than the 3rd option.
The good old days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 7 Sep 14:48
It's as if Johnston thought it would be easy and that May simply hadn't been trying hard enough.
Revoking might be the only way to prevent NI lighting up again. Although that might light up the mainland instead!
A new vote honestly seems like the sensible option. Two options: Revoke Article 50 and remain or; Leave, Deal or No Deal on a specific date.
Give the politicians a proper mandate to perform a specific task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Sat 7 Sep 15:04
Don't think it was ever going to be easy, but I think we should have had a Leaver heading up the negotiations rather than the remainer that was May.
Still she might have a rye smile or two to herself as her title of "worst Prime Minister" might not be one she holds for too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 9 Sep 22:31
SNP now polling higher than the Tories in all 13 Tory seats in Scotland . If this continues in to a GE......wipeout for the spineless mob....and good riddance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Tue 10 Sep 00:33
What will the pension age and pension amounts be in an independent Scotland that will help folks of that age make an informed decision?
Will pensions paid into a current UK pot be available in an independent Scotland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: da_no_1
Date: Tue 10 Sep 00:38
Quote:
dafc, Tue 10 Sep 00:33
What will the pension age and pension amounts be in an independent Scotland that will help folks of that age make an informed decision?
Will pensions paid into a current UK pot be available in an independent Scotland?
Oh don't do that.....they don't like difficult questions
"Some days will stay a 1000 years, some pass like the flash of a spark"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 10 Sep 05:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 10 Sep 06:34
Personally I quite like difficult questions.
When it comes to pensions, the key thing to remember is that divorce law encompasses a premise that assets and liabilities go hand in hand. Essentially the dissolution of the Union will be a divorce, at least in my Lawyer auld man's mind. Scotland is entitled to either a GDP- or Population-based share (opinions apparently differ) of the assets of the Department of work and pensions. This includes the UK pension pot which, by all accounts, isnae very large because of a certain Gordon Brown. If the UK Government tries to rebuke this premise then Scotland can legally refuse debt, a.k.a. Liabilities. Regardless, I would suspect that there would be the establishment of pension pot by the new Scottish Exchequer or Public Pensions Authority (Whatever it's name may be). The more pressing issue on pensions though would be currency of the new Scottish State. Personally I would argue that we should adopt a Scottish Pound that would be pegged to the Euro in the early years until such time that it could be freely floated, using the Swiss Franc as a precedent. In such an instance, the Scottish Government could use blanket legislation to ensure that all wages, mortgages etc are legally transfered to the new currency at a fixed rate, as has been done previously in states that have adopted the Euro in recent years. Such an arrangement would deal with a lot of concerns about volatility and I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested by someone in a position of authority. Until we know the exact state of negotiations with regards to assets and liabilities, then we won't know where the base cash for a new pension fund will come from, but I would think it's reasonable to assume that either a deal will be struck with the UK for a share of the assets, something will be done by the EU (assuming membership etc) or - assuming negotiations falter - the Scottish Government will use part of a borrowed "start up" cash block to form the basis of a Public Pension fund, which in turn would create a new Scottish national debt but this wouldn't be a massive issue considering we'd be free of the UK debt. The default arguments might rear their head again, but the UKs world standing certainly ain't what it once was!
As for amounts, well I'd assume that the current level would be kept the same in the beginning and revised upwards later, owing to the fact that Scotland largely votes Social/Liberal Democrat and that the UK has one of the worst state pension rates in the developed world.
When it comes to private pensions, these are managed by private bodies that should be accountable to the holders. The sensible thing for any individual at the moment would be to shift their pension out of Sterling and into either Swiss Francs or Norwegian Kronor, owing to the fact that Sterling is becoming a bit of a basketcase and these currencies are remarkably stable. Does Joe Blogs on the street have the knowledge to do this? No. Will companies take the steps to do this for their customers? No, because it would cost them time, money and consumer confidence.
Speculative conjecture I hear you say! Perhaps, but I think you'd be hard pressed to say the thinking lacks logic.
Post Edited (Tue 10 Sep 06:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 10 Sep 10:04
Pension pot was originally plundered by Thatcher, the rest just followed on.
See link in WASPI thread. 😎😡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Tue 10 Sep 11:02
There is no pension pot. It might have started like that but pensions are funded from current taxation, ie the workers of today pay the state pensions of the workers of yesteryear.
There have been proposals floated to merge NI, a tax by any other name, with PAYE as an efficiency measure, but a basic tax rate of over 30% was too symbolically scary to contemplate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 10 Sep 17:17
Agreed that any divorce settlement should split assets and liabilities. There are many ways of doing this – on a case by case basis, sector by sector, or in toto. Of course, some assets are difficult to split. 10% of an aircraft carrier may not be useful (even assuming 100% is in the first place… 😊)
The method of sharing is up for negotiation too. It’s as if 10 of you go to a restaurant, and one wants to leave early. How much does (s)he pay? The simplest way is to split the bill in 10 – a per capita share. Or you could argue about who had an extra beer, who only had tap water, who had a starter and a pudding, who had the steak etc. This latter asset share is complicated as the meal has been going on for over 300 years and we started off as much more than 10% of the population. For that reason, I think the national debt may have been split on a per capita basis, and presumably netted off against assets.
It might have been an idea for this to have been broadly agreed before any vote, so we had a better idea what we were voting for. As it is, we seem to have established the principle of a second confirmatory referendum on the terms of any future deal.
There are good reasons why there is no state “pension pot”, particularly if the state has an independent currency. Gordon Brown’s abolition of ACT relief was unrelated, and had two aims – one shifted the tax burden (so either poor pensioners were robbed so the rich could pay less tax, or rich pensioners got less and the money was spent on hospitals and roads, depending on your point of view), the other was to incentivise profit re-investment and hence lead to more growth, and thence higher tax receipts. As an aside, it isn’t clear to me why it is necessarily better to get receipts from CT rather than IT. Perhaps it is a “victimless tax”; perhaps there are economic reasons.
I don’t think any proposed currency solution is as good as the one we currently(!) have.
Surely pegging a currency to the Euro is asking for speculators to pile in? How much are you going to need in Foreign Currency reserves to maintain the peg, and where is that money going to come from?
Compulsory redenomination might work if people’s income, expenditure, assets and liabilities are predominantly in the same currency, but that won’t be the case – many people will have assets and liabilities in Sterling with what will become foreign companies. Who is going to bear the costs of these changes? Consumers? Or Tax-payers?
Does the UK really have one of the worst state pensions in the world? Is this not a function of inequality of incomes, and the large scale contracting out of pension via tax incentives? When arguing that Scots are taxed higher than elsewhere in the UK we are told to take things “In the round”, Presumably we should do the same here.
I can barely believe that you are recommending people (or worse, companies on their behalf) introduce currency risk by switching their pensions into another currency, a potentially reckless action.
Are we agreed that State Pensions would be paid by a putative Scottish Government? Again, this would be up to negotiation. I note that the current fiscal transfer allows such benefits to be paid, so funding them in an Indy Scot would be an issue. I remember in 2014 it was suggested that Scots' relatively poorer life expectancy might allow the State Pension Age to be reduced; I that this was an appalling take – surely we should be trying to address the poorer mortality, not celebrate it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 10 Sep 17:54
Current proposals for pension age would mean areas of Glasgow could have a majority of people who were dead before they could claim it.
Whilst this provides relief for the pension pot, it's not good for the health of the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Thu 12 Sep 05:09
Nice to see you back McCaig - was wondering where you'd been!
The thing your write on pensions you write is interesting. I'd have thought a "pension pot" would have been the investment principle you speak of in combination with a reserve been kept in a savings account as such.
As for pre-negotiations, I think that's wishful thinking on your part - the UK Government was quite unequivocal in their refusal of pre-negotiations.
Simply put, I disagree with you on the current currency situation being the best in the case of an Independent Scotland. For me it has to be a Scottish Pound or maybe even "Pound Scots" as it was known.
The point about foreign currency reserves to maintain a peg is quite interesting - I've tried to research this but there doesn't seem to be an agreed standard as such. From what I understand though, the UK has significant foreign cash reserves and again Scotland is entitled to its fair share of this at least and no doubt there will be trade-offs that could be advantageous. I think it's fair to say we wouldn't be starting from square one. Someone better versed than i would need to answer that question and a currency peg should only really be used in the short term while we essentially get the ball rolling with the new Government agencies being established. In fact, one of the key disadvantages of a currency peg is that it can limit what a Government can do in terms of monetary policy, but in effect we can do nothing until we have an exchequer.
RE your point that is to do with debts: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess the main issue would be with liabilities rather than assets. A Physical Asset in Scotland such as a property, obviously is subject to Scots law. The Scottish and rUK Governments could legislate that legal responsibility for any liabilities relating to an asset in Scotland fall under the jurisdiction of Scots law and essentially force companies to move these assets into their Scottish divisions. Thus if you couple it with a fixed exchange rate to the new initially pegged currency then you largely have a "problem solved" scenario from the Scottish Perspective. The potential issue would be those living in the UK who wish to pay liabilities for assets located in Scotland with Sterling, which would likely have taken a hit by Scotland leaving the UK.
According to the OECD, the UK does indeed have one of the worst state pensions in the developed world.
To be almost outraged at the suggestion of moving pensions out of Sterling I think is a bit silly to be honest. If it was into another currency along the lines of Euros or US Dollars, then I could understand. In this instance, the suggest of moving pensions to either Swiss Francs or Norwegian Kronors which are noted as being two of the most stable currencies in the world is actually a good one considering that Sterling has lost about a third of its value against other currencies in the last few years. Personally, I keep my pension in Norwegian Kronors and have shifted all savings out of Sterling into other currencies and have made a tidy wee sum doing so.
State Pensions would be the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government and I don't see how you can say there would be funding issues for them if they are paid now, as you would claim, without a pension pot. I do agree though that we need to put better measures in place to improve the health of the population - better diet, more exercise etc. The drugs crisis is one that also needs addressed in this regard. An interesting suggestion from my Social work mother was the construction of specialist centres and 90 day sentences for heroine addicts, as this is the time it takes to get them to a decent stage rather than the current 30 days. Interestingly, she reckons the methadone program isn't effective, but that's a debate for another day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Thu 12 Sep 20:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Thu 12 Sep 20:49
It's not unreasonable for Westminster to cough up for pensions for a period of time, and if they don't Scotland pays not one penny of the debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 12 Sep 21:29
I think you guys have just demonstrated that if it’s difficult for U.K. to leave the EU after 45 years how much more difficult for Scotland to leave the U.K. after 300 years. 🤨
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 12 Sep 22:41
Quote:
parbucks, Thu 12 Sep 21:29
I think you guys have just demonstrated that if it’s difficult for U.K. to leave the EU after 45 years how much more difficult for Scotland to leave the U.K. after 300 years. 🤨
Reasonably difficult I would imagine.
Ireland managed after 200 years to leave the Union so it's clearly possible. Not that I would recommend they way the separated.
There are several other countries which have extricated themselves from the clutches of the empire so it's possible.
The trick is to actually negotiate without prejudice. I wonder which side would be the EU equivalent and which would be the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 13 Sep 16:25
Thank you for your welcome, HJ – let me say it’s great to be back.
To deal with your points:
Do you want another go at your pension point? I didn’t really understand it.
Of course, sterling is free-floating, so there is less need for foreign currency reserves to defend it (and hence a proportional share of an inadequate amount is likely to be inadequate).
Now a couple of general points – business does not like being compelled to do things. If it was in their interests to be doing something they would probably be doing it already; if it is not in their perceived interests then they will take evasive measures (such as restructuring or transferring assets). (And of course, this applies to individuals as well). The second point is that having assets and liabilities that are mismatched in any way (such as in terms of currency but also time or duration) introduces risk.
If you are a mortgage lender which has lent in sterling, you are going to want repaid in sterling. If the lendee is suddenly earning in groats (or whatever) then that introduces transactional costs in terms of converting groats into sterling. There is also an additional risk that exchange rate fluctuations mean the lendee struggles to meet their commitments. (And that is before any additional risk of an indy Scot economy crashing). In short, the lenders will charge more.
You could redenominate the mortgage (and move to a new, Scottish, lender). This is going to cost.
rUK is unlikely to want to compel its businesses to take action that is damaging; the costs will presumably fall on the consumers – you and me. Assuming we are Scots residents with a mortgage.
You will also have potential issues with individuals who hold assets in the form of insurance policies or investments with rUK companies (which is likely to be the case as those companies ensure such assets are rUK domiciled)
Incidentally, you seem to be pegging the Scots Pound to sterling as well as pegging it to the Euro.
Didn’t the OECD report compare the replacement ratio with that of other countries (i.e. the percentage of average earnings replaced by the State Pension)? So reducing average incomes would improve the ratio, but that may not be ideal in the round. And of course, there have been tax incentives to encourage private provision, so the effect of this should be taken into account (but isn’t) as people rush to condemn the UK for being rubbish.
There are enough pension scammers around robbing the naïve of their cash without adding to the problem, so I think it is outrageous to suggest pension companies take a huge, speculative (and unrequested) punt on the currency markets. Sticking all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea. Currency risk is largely unrewarded.
Currently many areas of the UK (Including Scotland) benefit from the fiscal transfer from the richer areas (London and the SE). Giving that up must surely introduce funding challenges that were not there before. Note that currently expenditure on social protection represents about 40% of public revenue.
I’ll not comment on the drug deaths except to say that we appear to be the worst in Europe. Surely the SG bears some responsibility for this?
As for Pacifist’s comment. There are some issues with this – in 2014 (although it was never tested) both HMG and the SG appeared in agreement that the SG would be responsible for pensions. Why would that change? As for welching on the debt, there are 3 main challenges. One, it is unethical – is this the first thing you want to do as an independent nation? Second, it is impractical – how are you going to be able to borrow on the money markets if you are a known and public defaulter? And third – no liabilities means no assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Sun 15 Sep 12:02
A new poll now showing that 45% of people across the whole of the U.K. support a second Indy ref.....rising to 60% when don’t knows are removed.
Public opinion is definitely in favour of a second referendum now without a shadow of a doubt.
The opposition can keep banging on about no appetite for a second Indy ref.......but not for much longer. They are going to have to find another hymn sheet to sign from soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 15 Sep 12:30
Just to be annoying, I'm in favour of Indy but but a second referendum.
Not just yet anyway.
And it's totally for selfish reasons: I genuinely can't be bothered. My energy levels for this sort of battle have become massively depleted between the first Indy and the Brexit referenda.
These are both hugely important issues and I think that we can all now accept that if it goes wrong then it could be an absolute shambles with implications for generations to come.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 16 Sep 10:41
The UK gov will not agree to a section 30 order anytime soon or if at all.
We don’t actually need one and like yourself as an independence supporter the thought of another Indy ref is not particularly appealing.
I hope the SNP unequivocally have in their manifesto for the up coming GE a statement that a vote for them is a vote for independence.
SNP are going to win probably around 50 seats. Now if they got 50%+1 of the vote then thats it. It is unlikely however that they will break through the 50% barrier at a GE. Even with the votes for Green and Rise added. However if they get close we have to add 70% of the 16/17 year olds to the total.....it will be pretty close to 50% I would think.
The LibDems? The hypocrisy of this mob is astounding.
Totally against another independence referendum regardless of what the polls say and regardless of how well SNP do at any election.
But quite happy to have a second EU referendum and now it seems revoke article 50 if they ( very unlikely ) won a GE.....with a %age of the vote presumably in the mid 30’s.
They are apparently saying that the GE will actually be a second referendum as all those against Brexit....in England and Wales...will vote for them ...they hope and if they do and they won.....again unlikely then that would be that. So it is ok for them to revoke the result on a referendum with a %age share of the vote that will be substantially less than the 52% who vote Leave.....There will be hell on down south if that ever happened.
If SNP won most seats in Scotland with a bigger share of the vote than the Lib Dem’s get UK wide.....they will still be against independence........how does that work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 16 Sep 12:33
The SNP won't make Indy an election pledge because they know that their neoliberal Blairite brand has wide appeal outside of the independence crowd.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Mon 16 Sep 14:25
I think they will have something in their manifesto regarding independence. They simply have to. What the exact wording is though will be debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Mon 16 Sep 23:00
I don’t think UDI will get a mention. Only total bampots advocate that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 17 Sep 16:22
UDI is for regions within a recognised political state. Scotland does not need to or has to declare UDI. As a equal partner to the act of union with England we can merely announce that we are dissolving the Union due to WM aka England breaking the terms of the union on multiple occasions . UDI is a red herring and mentioned as an option by many independence supporters....mistakenly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Tue 17 Sep 17:01
There must be a catch in there somewhere...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 17 Sep 19:43
No catch I am aware of. One partner in a voluntary union can decide to leave said union anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 18 Sep 12:10
Apologies MT - Laptop has decided it doesn't like the Politics forum on dotnet for some reason and I cant figure out why for the life of me! I want to sit down and write a proper response but limited to the phone at the moment! :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 13:41
PMSL :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 18 Sep 15:16
Its weird as hell - comes up "405 bad request" everytime I try to load the feckin thing! 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 18 Sep 16:50
It's a Unionist plot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 18 Sep 17:08
Blame Westminster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 18 Sep 17:15
And Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 18 Sep 17:46
Try clearing cookies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 18 Sep 18:25
Back to polls. SIU had a poll recently, multi choice question with remain or leave in the question in a deliberate attempt to get the result they wanted.
Spectacular back fire......well over 60% in favour of another Indy ref.
With the U.K. Gov poll that Tommy Shepherd has been trying to get released on a FOI.....so far unsuccessfully it does indeed look like the NO side are running scared.
Rumour has it that particular poll had Yes at 57%....neither wonder they are not releasing the result.....now is not the time I suppose.
Support for Yes is only going to increase.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 18 Sep 20:27
“Row erupts as Scottish independence poll shows 59% of Scots back remaining in UK”
Headline in the Daily Record today.
Desparado, I’m shocked you haven’t commented on this one.😗
Post Edited (Wed 18 Sep 20:32)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 20:39
Is that the Scotland in Union one Parbucks?
Anything about that name stick out to you by the way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 18 Sep 20:42
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/
This link will explain it to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 18 Sep 20:43
Wotsit
You’ve lost me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 18 Sep 20:45
It's funny how organisations tend to get the results they want from the polls they commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 18 Sep 21:04
SIU construct the question to deliberately confuse people.....
The last polls that asked a simple question, “ do you want Scotland to be an independent nation” showed an increase for Yes with one poll showing 52% Yes.
There has been no poll,since the Indy ref that has had No at 59%....complete nonsense and they know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Wed 18 Sep 21:12
There was nothing confusing about the question at all. 'Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK or to leave the UK.'
If someone is confused by such a question then maybe it best they aren't allowed a sharp pencil in a polling booth anyway.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 18 Sep 21:22
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Wed 18 Sep 21:12
There was nothing confusing about the question at all. 'Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK or to leave the UK.'
If someone is confused by such a question then maybe it best they aren't allowed a sharp pencil in a polling booth anyway.
All polls should have yes no questions. Not questions that can be answered either way. The question should have been either 1) should Scotland be an independent country or 2) should Scotland remain part of the UK. Pick one you get yes/no answers and no confusion
Putting both options in the one question actually has been shown to often get unexpected results. People often pick the first option as they fail to read the whole question. The way the question is framed is very important
Post Edited (Wed 18 Sep 21:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 18 Sep 21:39
Remember how much time it took to agree a question for the Indy referendum?
There was all sorts of talk about how a question can bias the result.
I remember the talk about emotional bias e.g. "should Scotland split from the UK" and "should Scotland be Independent" are the same question in their basic meaning but they elicit different emotions in folk because of how each question is framed (one is about splitting something apart, a destructive act, whilst the other elicits the creation of something new.
That's just one way that language can be used to manipulate results, there are loads.
So a flawed questioning technique coupled with the questioners' partiality makes the thing meaningless really.
The Yes side will be producing similarly flawed results.
Why does it matter? Because herd mentality is a thing so people who are unsure are more likely to tip towards the perceived majority when push comes to shove.
I've been unsure of my vote whilst in the polling booth with the paper in front of me once and it was a pretty unsettling feeling tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 18 Sep 22:10
Wotsit
I agree. How the question is framed can/will influence the result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 19 Sep 08:23
The latest poll was conducted by Survation, a well established pollster whose reputation would be trashed if it wasn’t conducted correctly.
Much to my merriment there are online furious online comments saying it was bent but also quoting the more favourable stats. Just a bit bent then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 19 Sep 12:36
Quote:
Mario, Thu 19 Sep 08:23
The latest poll was conducted by Survation, a well established pollster whose reputation would be trashed if it wasn’t conducted correctly.
Much to my merriment there are online furious online comments saying it was bent but also quoting the more favourable stats. Just a bit bent then.
Not saying Survation have not conducted poll correctly. I don't think anyone else did either. It was all about the framing of the question and I would think the people requesting the poll would frame the question.
As I said not a straight yes/no question so imo it's badly framed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Thu 19 Sep 13:23
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Wed 18 Sep 21:12
There was nothing confusing about the question at all. 'Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK or to leave the UK.'
If someone is confused by such a question then maybe it best they aren't allowed a sharp pencil in a polling booth anyway.
Seriously? You can't see the ambiguity in a simple yes/no response to that question?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 19 Sep 14:05
It wouldn’t be Yes/No. The options on a ballot paper Remain in the UK or Leave the UK seem perfectly clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Sep 14:37
It wasn't it a ballot paper though, was it? It was a poll. Was it conducted by phone, online, in person?
It seems unlikely in the present political climate that there would be a sudden increase in support for the Union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 19 Sep 17:10
The question used in the poll was:-
“ If there was a referendum tomorrow with the question ‘should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom’ how would you vote?
Which seems clear enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:01
Even a raised eyebrow could influence the result under some circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:24
Why didn't they just ask the simple question.
How would you vote in a future independence referendum yes or no?
Leaves nothing to the imagination.
As said, it seems bizarre any poll right now would have a no vote at 58% given all the rest in the last 2 years showing a consistent closeness.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:12
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Thu 19 Sep 18:24
Why didn't they just ask the simple question.
How would you vote in a future independence referendum yes or no?
Leaves nothing to the imagination.
As said, it seems bizarre any poll right now would have a no vote at 58% given all the rest in the last 2 years showing a consistent closeness.
Scotland in Union done the poll, just getting really desperate now, the yoons are kaking theirselfs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:24
I know it sounds a bit daft but the way a question is framed is extremely important. This one was framed in such a way as to influence staying in the UK.
If you had put the option of leaving the UK first in the question the result would have been very different.
The poll was taken off 1003 of which 950 expressed an opinion. Is that enough to get a proper result. Any responses under 1500 becomes increasingly less valid the lower the number
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:33
As we know the only result that counts is when 33.5 million people express their opinion despite their “elected representatives “ trying to deny it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
