Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Generali wrote: »

From the thing I found they seem to be a tuppenny sort of outfit. He's forgotten his book, she's complaining that she's going to puke on the audience. The poetry is a sort of semi-dialectical dogma about how they thought devolution was going to be great but now they've been sold a pup.

As for the staff? The Director doesn't seem to have run anything ever. Looking at the policy unit (the first listed) we have:

1. A member of the Green party that protests stuff a lot. He's the boss.
2. A grad
3. A lobbyist who "...has a B.A in International Relations a M.Sc. in Development Management and a Washington Consensus phobia. She lives with her family in an earth sheltered passivhaus after being told it couldn't be done. A values driven public affairs professional, she communicates messages for debate and change, to influence policy makers and stakeholders through a mix of facetoface,traditional media and new media strategies."

I'd stick to the butterflies and forgotten booklets myself.

Och I know what you mean right enough, fair play .... although it's not like he folded towels for a living before running the UK''s economy is it ?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

baldelectrician wrote: »

.
it is a matter of time- those above 65 are the only age deomgraphic to vote against independence.

Wrong...

Here's the breakdown from the final YouGov Poll.

YES VOTE:
34% of those aged 65 +
45% of those aged 60-64
47% of those aged 40-59
55% of those 25-39
49% of those 16-24

NO VOTE:
66% of those aged 65+
55% of those aged 60-64
53% of those aged 40-59
45% of those aged 25-39
51% of those aged 16-24

The only age group to vote for independence was the 25-39 age group.

Not only that, but there was also a clear divide by education, income, class, etc. In terms of Social grouping 59% of the (usually) better educated and higher earning ABC1 social groups voted No, while only 50% of the (usually) lower earning, higher benefits claiming, and lower educated C2DE voted No.

And finally, geographically, there were only 4 electoral areas out of 32 that voted Yes. Basically Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee. In other words, areas of high unemployment, low income, high benefits claims.

The Yes campaigners can try and fool themselves all day long that this was somehow close, or they were robbed, but that is a complete nonsense.

This was a decisive victory for No, in almost all of the country geographically, in all but one of the age groups, in the better educated social groups, and even in the lower social groupings it was a tie.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong...

Here's the breakdown from the final YouGov Poll.

YES VOTE:
34% of those aged 65 +
45% of those aged 60-64
47% of those aged 40-59
55% of those 25-39
49% of those 16-24

NO VOTE:
66% of those aged 65+
55% of those aged 60-64
53% of those aged 40-59
45% of those aged 25-39
51% of those aged 16-24

The only age group to vote for independence was the 25-39 age group.

YouGov and Ashcroft's immediate polls were contradictory in some areas ( see What Scotland Thinks ).. the larger study undertaken 6 months later which I've already linked to recently.. might be somewhat more reliable. And as far as age groups are concerned. It's all in how they're broken down.

70+ No 65.7% Yes 34.3%
60-69 No 56.3% Yes 43.7%
50-59 No 52.9% Yes 47.1%
40-49 No 49.4% Yes 50.6%
30-39 No 46.1% Yes 53.9%
16-29 No 46.0% Yes 54.0%

http://centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Scottish%20Referendum%20Study%2027%20March%202015.pdf

There's a clear correlation between age and how likely one was to vote Yes or No.

Not only that, but there was also a clear divide by education, income, class, etc. In terms of Social grouping 59% of the (usually) better educated and higher earning ABC1 social groups voted No, while only 50% of the (usually) lower earning, higher benefits claiming, and lower educated C2DE voted No.

And finally, geographically, there were only 4 electoral areas out of 32 that voted Yes. Basically Glasgow (and surrounds) and Dundee. In other words, areas of high unemployment, low income, high benefits claims.

So ? Every vote counted the same. And again, that Yougov poll wasn't the only one taken.

The Yes campaigners can try and fool themselves all day long that this was somehow close, or they were robbed, but that is a complete nonsense.

This was a decisive victory for No, in almost all of the country geographically, in all but one of the age groups, in the better educated social groups, and even in the lower social groupings it was a tie.

Oh and that 69% 'poll' you posted ?

In fact, it turned out they had been conducted by telephone, but by an Aberdeen-based firm called 'Ideas In Partnership' which, among other things, specialises in bridalwear events. To say that they are not a member of the British Polling Council does not even begin to do justice to how many light-years away they are from being a credible pollster.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/press-journal-embarrass-themselves.html

Shakethedisease

Oh I forgot this one. The Ipsos Mori poll on 2nd Sept 2015 ( as opposed to 12 months ago )...

16-24: 80%
25-34: 56%
35-44: 54%
45-54: 60%
55-64: 43%
65+: 29%

blair jenkins ‏@BlairJenkinsYes Sep 2 @STVNews Among many interesting detailed numbers behind your headline figure, it seems fully 60% of under-55s now support a Yes vote.

There's a bit of hope there for us Yessers to cling on to yet. Just 12 months later.

elantan

skintmacflint wrote: »

That's all well and good. But did you also explain that in clear detail ie for next decade and the level of cuts which would be needed to their welfare pathreaten people with a loss of benefits if they voted yes yments, schools and council services., to all the people in the deprived areas you canvassed in?

I explained everything I believed or knew to be true, I didn't threaten people with a loss of pension if they voted Yes ... I didnt threaten a loss of benefits if they voted Yes ... but I did say look what thatcher did to our country, if u thought she was bad she is nothing compared to Cameron, cause she didn't have the guts to touch the NHS or the Child benefit, Cameron has already touched both, he is ruthless ... and if the Tories get in again this country will see a set stripping on a grand scale


And now the wind farms, ccs and solar are running out the country, long an net is shutting Cockenzie is done.

But hey its what 55% wanted ... right

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

16-24: 80%
25-34: 56%
35-44: 54%
45-54: 60%
55-64: 43%
65+: 29%

The older you are the wiser you become.

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I explained everything I believed or knew to be true, I didn't threaten people with a loss of pension if they voted Yes ... I didnt threaten a loss of benefits if they voted Yes ... but I did say look what thatcher did to our country, if u thought she was bad she is nothing compared to Cameron, cause she didn't have the guts to touch the NHS or the Child benefit, Cameron has already touched both, he is ruthless ... and if the Tories get in again this country will see a set stripping on a grand scale


And now the wind farms, ccs and solar are running out the country, long an net is shutting Cockenzie is done.

But hey its what 55% wanted ... right

and the evidence is everywhere visible in Scotland


a country massively poorer now than before the Thatcher reforms

skintmacflint

elantan wrote: »

I explained everything I believed or knew to be true, I didn't threaten people with a loss of pension if they voted Yes ... I didnt threaten a loss of benefits if they voted Yes ... but I did say look what thatcher did to our country, if u thought she was bad she is nothing compared to Cameron, cause she didn't have the guts to touch the NHS or the Child benefit, Cameron has already touched both, he is ruthless ... and if the Tories get in again this country will see a set stripping on a grand scale


And now the wind farms, ccs and solar are running out the country, long an net is shutting Cockenzie is done.

But hey its what 55% wanted ... right

I'm genuinely surprised you reverted to the that old chestnut of Tories = Evil and Bad . I'm sure I recall you agreeing on another thread that it was long time overdue that this simplistic soundbite was stopped in Scotland.

If our welfare and NHS budgets had been as unmanageable in Thatchers day as they are now, you can be sure she'd have tackled them head on. As she did the unions. And if the unions had been prepared to work with Wilson and Castle when she issued her paper In Place of Strife, some of her heavy handed changes might not have been necessary. Society just doesn't seem to be able to achieve balance .

Both Salmond and Sturgeon knew the 'disadvantaged' and 'vulnerable' they pretend to protect , would have been the first and largest groups to pay a heavy price for their Independence. Makes it pretty hypocritical not to mention farcical , for SNP plus a large section of their new supporters to complain non stop about some cuts coming to tax credits etc. As for it being worth it, to have full control of our own destiny, or sovereignty , think events in the EU have shown that not to be the quite how it works out when a new small member state.

As it is, the welfare changes Cameron is making , seem to represent more nudge behaviour modification policies for future generations than real austerity. Yes some people will be affected but it should be short term pain for long term gain as wages increase etc, and we stop throwing away multi billions on debt interest every year.

We've more than enough wind farms plastered throughout Scotland, with more still to be installed in the pipeline , unaffected by grant subsidy removal. And as usual a minority , who have profited hugely at the expense of the majority. Longannet was planned for closure by SNP as far as I knew. Is Peterhead not the only location left in the running for a billion pound contract with UK funding for onshore carbon capture and storage with possibility of 600 new jobs in construction alone?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Oh dear....

Nicola Sturgeon's frontbench spokeswoman on business has been involved in a series of property deals exposed as possible mortgage fraud, according to a public ruling.

Michelle Thomson, the Edinburgh West SNP MP and Scottish National party’s shadow minister for business, innovation and skills, was involved in the suspect deals in 2010 and 2011.

All of the 13 transactions for which Hales was struck off involved Thomson or the property venture M&F Property Solutions, in which a tribunal stated she was a partner.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1612472.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_09_26

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh dear....

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1612472.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_09_26

Whoopsie! The response of the party will be interesting. Do they boot her out or soldier on?