Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure I want Colorado #2.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Did anybody watch the Salmond Vs Darling debate?

Apparently Salmond got destroyed. I wonder if this will make any difference.

Whoever told you that was either on something or very biased or a member of the lying scum British media. The poll conducted undecideds in the audience afterwards showed that Salmond was regarded as the
winner:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/

 

[Benefactor]

A snapshot ICM/Guardian poll of 512 people immediately after the two-hour live debate found a majority thought Alistair Darling had fared better.

More than 56% thought Mr Darling came out on top while 44% thought Mr Salmond won.

However, Blair Jenkins insisted another ICM question showed Mr Salmond made greater strides at convincing undecided voters to back independence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28673046


I haven't seen it myself yet, probably going to give it a watch after work today.

 

[Kyriakos]

It does sound like a quality article. "More than 56% thought the one side won, and 44% thought the other side won". Can't be that much more than 56% i suppose, but it's still MOAR

 

[Traitorfish]

If most No voters are anything like the No voters I know, they'd probably insist Darling had won if all he did was stand silently, looking disgusted. Yes voters are invested in the debate itself, they know what their case is and they want it made properly, but most No voters find the very fact we're having this referendum to be personally offensive, so don't really have a clear idea of what they want from their spokespeople beyond a continuous stream of pessimism.

 

[Quackers]

Whoever told you that was either on something or very biased or a member of the lying scum British media. The poll conducted undecideds in the audience afterwards showed that Salmond was regarded as the
winner:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-stat-that-matters/

..and equally i've seen evidence which suggests Darling won the debate.

lying scum British media

Pipe down Wallace. You want some salt and vinegar with that chip on your shoulder?

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, bring some evidence Quakers. That's you second straight post without substantiating said claim.

Pipe down Wallace. You want some salt and vinegar with that chip on your shoulder?

Wallace is a bit of a slur. How would you like me to address you as Colonel Blimp, or Roast Beef, or Pommy?

Anyway, if you don't have many 'chips on your shoulder' as you guys like to say, you are either Bill Gates, some billionaire banker type, or some seriously deluded type missing how the world works.

 

[Pangur Bán]

If most No voters are anything like the No voters I know, they'd probably insist Darling had won if all he did was stand silently, looking disgusted. Yes voters are invested in the debate itself, they know what their case is and they want it made properly, but most No voters find the very fact we're having this referendum to be personally offensive, so don't really have a clear idea of what they want from their spokespeople beyond a continuous stream of pessimism.

Indeed. I think the serious NO voters are relieved AD didn't get humilated, and likewise lots of the Yes guys are (secretely or not so secretly) disappointed AD didn't get humiliated.

It's also hard to see how it will get better. Next showdown, if there is one, will likely be an away match. The BBC have been doing a lot of whining and other stuff because YES rejected them first time around ... but from what I've heard YES may agree to it for some future spot.

 

[Pangur Bán]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28673046

I haven't seen it myself yet, probably going to give it a watch after work today.

It does sound like a quality article. "More than 56% thought the one side won, and 44% thought the other side won". Can't be that much more than 56% i suppose, but it's still MOAR

Read the link I posted. This is the cynical BBC being tendentious again and ignoring the polls weighting available to them. Audience contained more no voters, so slightly preferred Darling; but 'among voters who’d started out as undecideds, Salmond won by 55-45. Among those who remained undecided at the end the First Minister was still judged to have done best, by a thumping 74 to 26'. So that's a Salmond win.

 

[Quackers]

Well, bring some evidence Quakers. That's you second straight post without substantiating said claim.

It seems quite fruitless when you've already decided our media is "lying scum".
Seems like you've firmly made up your own mind.

Wallace is a bit of a slur. How would you like me to address you as Colonel Blimp, or Roast Beef, or Pommy?

Don't be so pathetic.

Anyway, if you don't have many 'chips on your shoulder' as you guys like to say, you are either Bill Gates, some billionaire banker type, or some seriously deluded type missing how the world works.

Plenty of things I don't like in our world today but if i carried them around with me I would be miserable.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Well, if you're not able to carry them around with you, you can at least not try to make it worse by throwing insults at the people who are bothered by particular wrongs. It's alright sitting at home with the BBC on, your tea and a copy of the Daily Mail, attacking lefties, people who want to help immigrants and so forth, but the people you are serving do not ultimately share your interests and you will sooner or later find yourself and members of your family voiceless victims. Everyone is in the world lives in it together.

 

[Samson]

Does anyone here actually know the rules of the referendum? Some bloke was telling me that a turnout of over 76% is required for the result to stand? That sounds incredibly high, and if I was a firm NO supporter it would be in my interest to not vote, rather than vote no.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Your friend isn't correct. They did that for the Scottish vote of 1979, added a last minute minimum turnout to scupper it. But for the 2014 independence referendum there is no minimum.

 

[Kyriakos]

I didn't realise up to now, but after seeing the first photo in one of the links here...:

Alistair Darling?

Seriously?

Isn't he mostly INfamous for being the main Blair era spin doctor?

 

[Samson]

I didn't realise up to now, but after seeing the first photo in one of the links here...:

Alistair Darling?

Seriously?

Isn't he mostly INfamous for being the main Blair era spin doctor?

I think you are thinking of Alastair Campbell, who is now mostly infamous for being in charge of a major phone hacking operation, before being Blairs spin doctor.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, maybe.. Although Al Darling was in Blair's inner circle too, wasn't he?

 

[Antilogic]

If most No voters are anything like the No voters I know, they'd probably insist Darling had won if all he did was stand silently, looking disgusted. Yes voters are invested in the debate itself, they know what their case is and they want it made properly, but most No voters find the very fact we're having this referendum to be personally offensive, so don't really have a clear idea of what they want from their spokespeople beyond a continuous stream of pessimism.

That would be a very interesting debate to watch. Half the debate of some impassioned Brit, and the other half of stunned silence staring at the guy in disgust.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I think he was saying that the 'Brit' side would be the disgusted silent one (pretty spot-one caricature I may add).

 

[Antilogic]

I think he was saying that the 'Brit' side would be the disgusted silent one

I know, that was a bit of trolling.

 

[Samson]

Hm, maybe.. Although Al Darling was in Blair's inner circle too, wasn't he?

Yeah, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for a long time (2nd most important post). They had to find a scott to run the No campaign, and they were not going to find one of those in the Tory party