[boogers]

Yeah. Interestingly, the 2004 referendum on devolution for the North East of England was rejected by nearly 80:20.

[moonglow]

Marr has all the fight and forensic ability of an elderly labrador.

 

[althusser]

I didn't think she did too badly in the interview overall actually, but yes cringeful when asked on financial impact. Marr missed the opportunity to follow-up and ask whether her certainty on independence tends towards dogmatic faith.

[boogers]

Does it not concern you that Sturgeon is convinced that independence is the answer to everything, yet apparently doesn't care what impact that'll have on your economic well-being?

We know that an independent Scotland would have to absolutely slash spending and raise taxes, so by implication she's either grossly ignorant (dogmatic faith!) or doesn't actually care about people suffering. Both are pretty bad, and both are traits shared by the Brexiteers.

[marathonarthur]

^ Sorry Aileen, I used the word 'blind' after many discussions with friends who seem to follow without regard to the facts on what she is proposing. I tend to agree with Boogers on Scotland even if I do not think that attitudes on Brexit were similar at all as he suggests.
You may know those with a little more common sense that question what she says and what Independence would really mean for you all? Believe me I know a lot that seem to be in some sort of trance where she is concerned. I loved the Marr interview as it maybe suggested that everyone should try to consider the consequences of idealism. He was Justifiably pretty determined about the EU rules on borders!

A thought for all. If I were proposing something financial I might suggest what the effect might be now in the worst conditions with reduced economic activity not just in the rose tinted glasses future as, let's be honest, this situation could happen again? That the SNP is unwilling to do any sort of financial appraisal now cannot be a good indicator at all.  I am reminded that there are elections where these questions might be embarrassing.

[boogers]

Nationalists are, as a group, absolutely ignorant about that sort of thing, so I expect plenty of them will fall for it.

[boogers]

Here we go again, lumping all supporters of the SNP together.  Fact - (a) not all of us support independence and (b) some of us, including myself, are well aware of at least some of the things mentioned in that article, e.g. that total public spending in Scotland is more than the amount raised in taxes.

I didn't even mention the SNP.

And it's true: nationalists are, as evidenced by that poll, ignorant about such things.

Also a survey of 1,047 people aged 16+ isn't exactly representative of an 'epidemic' as this article would suggest.

It's entirely representative. A random sample of 1k people out of a population of 5 million will give you an answer that is +- 3% of the actual answer 95% of the time, or +- 4% of the actual answer 99% of the time.

Having said that though, there are a few interesting points which I wouldn't disagree with, mainly that we do need clarification IF, and it is a big IF, another indyref gets the go-ahead any time soon, as to exactly what independence would entail, although whether or not we would actually get it is another matter.

Fat chance. It's not in the nationalists interests to be honest about such things, as we saw in 2014. One need only look at the 2014 white paper and that stupid blue book published by Wings to see why.

[boogers]

There's a reason why I used the specific term "nationalist". You're the one conflating that with SNP.

Meanwhile - and talking of ignorant nationalists - Sturgeon during the leaders debate yet again demonstrating her rank ignorance (or duplicity, your choice) of economics. A Sterlingised Scotland could borrow like any other country could it?