Astronomers for independence
14 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Brian B Ritchie from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Sturgeon warning over No vote impact

DEPUTY First Minister Nicola Sturgeon will today warn that the UK Government will

Via Peter A Bell
more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, October 18, 2013 2:27 AM

The clowns over at Project Fear clearly fail to grasp the meaning of the term "scaremongering". It is only scaremongering if the stories are groundless. Otherwise, it is simply a warning of a very real threat. There is no threat of alien invasion or soaring roaming charges. These are examples of scaremongering. But the foreseeable consequences of voting No in next year's referendum are quite unlike the inanities peddled by British nationalists.


Some of us have been warning of these consequences for over a year. It is only right that people should be aware of what they are voting for.


What does no really mean?
Rescooped by Brian B Ritchie from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Devo Plus campaign seeks pro-union party support

SCOTLAND’S unionist parties are coming under growing pressure to spell out what extra powers they would back for Holyrood if voters reject independence in 2014.

Via Peter A Bell
more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, February 14, 2013 6:31 AM

Jeremy Purvis is tilting at phantom windmills here. Devolution is NOT an issue in this referendum. The British parties rejected the opportunity to have a "more powers" option on the ballot. Unless Mr Purvis has a time machine, that isn't going to change.

The referendum is a straight choice between independence and an undefined option which purports to offer no more than the status quo but which almost certainly means considerably less.

Of course, the anti-independence campaign now seeks to dupe the people of Scotland by pretending that it  is offering something more. It is for Jeremy Purvis to explain why he seeks to assist the British parties in this deception.

There is not the slightest doubt about what a YES vote means. Those intending to vote NO in the referendum are entitled to know what they are voting for. The British parties are refusing to provide an honest explanation of their intentions. Why then would any sensible person assume that those intentions are anything other than malign?

If the British parties had any interest in doing more than pay lip service to "improved devolution" they had plenty chances to do so over the past decade. What they actually did was bend their every effort to preserving the power of the British state.

If they had been at all concerned with serving the will of the people of Scotland they would not have so vehemently opposed the referendum.

If they had any genuine intention to develop devolution after the referendum they would have leapt at the opportunity to put their plans to the people of Scotland in the 2014 referendum. Instead, they threw endless tantrums and refused to even consider such a course of action.

Let us be very clear! A NO vote means the end of devolution; the "repatriation" of powers to Westminster; the imposition of social and economic policies to bring Scotland into line with the devastation being wrought in England.

A NO vote means massive cuts to the Scottish Parliament's powers and its budget.

A NO vote means gerrymandering of the voting system to ensure that the British parties retain control of the Scottish Parliament in perpetuity.

A NO vote means legislation to outlaw any further referendums on Scotland's constitutional status.

A NO vote will be represented as a rejection of the concept of popular sovereignty and an affirmation of the concept of the sovereignty of the Crown in parliament. It will be portrayed as a ringing endorsement of the union and the final say on the matter of Scotland's nationhood.

A NO vote truly will "extinguish" Scotland and bring about the culmination of the centuries-old project to absorb our country into a Greater England euphemistically labelled, "Britain".

A NO vote means we will be reviled by future generations as the people who, from craven cowardice and misplaced self-interest, betrayed the aspiration to build in Scotland a prosperous and socially just society.

Vote NO if you will. But do so knowing what you vote for.

Charles Patrick O'Brien's comment, February 15, 2013 4:40 AM
Concur entirely Peter,devolved power is NO POWER AT ALL.
Rescooped by Brian B Ritchie from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Karine Polwart: Why I’ll vote Yes despite the SNP

Karine Polwart: Why I’ll vote Yes despite the SNP | Astronomers for independence | Scoop.it
THURSDAY night. BBC Question Time is on telly. I’m venting a week’s worth of rage on Twitter, while nursing a tumbler of special offer white wine.

Via Peter A Bell
Brian B Ritchie's insight:

The title is totally misleading, as there is no mention of the SNP in the article. If this headline helps people to realise there is a distinction between YES and the SNP though it may not have the effect that the editor intended.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Brian B Ritchie from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

Eddie Barnes: Polls key to referendum momentum

Eddie Barnes: Polls key to referendum momentum | Astronomers for independence | Scoop.it
Tightening of polls would give both sides the momentum they need before the vote on independence, writes Eddie Barnes

Via Peter A Bell
more...
Peter A Bell's curator insight, February 13, 2013 4:28 AM

One of the things about polls is that they are subject to interpretation. And the mainstream media tends to go with whatever interpretation best suits their British nationalist bias. In The Scotsman and other organs of unionist propaganda meaningful, in-depth analysis of polling is so rare as to be non-existent. And this article certainly isn't doing anything to address that failing.

Take, for example, the claim that the Yes Scotland campaign needs to achieve a "massive swing". This may seem to be true, so long as one doesn't look to far beneath the surface. But more thoughtful analysis tells a rather different tale.

Without referring to any particular poll we can make the observation that they generally show support for independence at around 30% - 35%. Undecideds come in at around 10% - 15%. And the balance tends to be counted as confirmed NO voters. But how strong is this apparently clear lead for the NO camp?

Other polling indicates support for the status quo struggling to get into two figures. As the referendum campaign progresses increasing numbers of people will come to realise that, for all their dishonest, deceptive talk of "improved devolution", all the Bitter Together effort actually stands for is the status quo - the least popular option by a massive margin.

By contrast, support for more powers for the Scottish Parliament is massive and evidently rock solid around 70%. So simple arithmetic tells us that a very large proportion of those currently being assigned to the NO camp are, in fact, people who have already rejected the status quo.

All of a sudden, that 10 - 15 point lead for the anti-independence campaign isn't looking so secure. While the "don't knows" might tip either way in the final weeks and days of the campaign, that chunk of supposed NO voters who do not want the "nothing or less" being offered by the British parties are considerably more likely to tip into the YES camp than the NO camp.

Another thing about polls is that, especially this far out from the actual vote, they are more useful for indicating trends rather than predicting results. However hard the British nationalists and their friends in the mainstream media may try to convince us that the matter is already decided, the trends are increasingly promising for the YES campaign. The most significant trend will be a swing from NO to undecided. That may be happening even now. And once people move away from a commitment to the union, they almost never go back. Because, by its very nature, the NO campaign cannot give them any reason to do so.

Powerful evidence of this inevitable trend away from a questionable constitutional settlement is to be found in history. When has an independence movement with the solid support of upwards of a third of the people ever been anything other than ultimately successful.