Featured in the Herald earlier in the week, TNS-BMRB have released a full post-election poll on the question of Scottish independence. Since nobody else in the blogosphere has broken the full data down into its composite elements, I thought I'd revive the practice of the election, and tease out the results by gender, age, social grading and perhaps most pungently - by region. The fieldwork was conducted between the 25th and the 31st of May and sampled 1,022 people. TNS-BMRB asked the following question...
The SNP have outlined their plans for a possible referendum on Scottish independence in the future. If such a referendum were to be held tomorrow, how would you vote?
I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.OrI DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.OrDinnae ken.
Which generated the following results...
Total (agree or disagree with independence) results...
- Agree ~ 37%
- Disagree ~ 45%
- Don't know ~ 18%
It is often argued that it is the issue of independence which explains the gendered profile of the SNP's voters, specifically, the historically lower level of support the party has attracted amongst women. Interestingly, levels of disagreement with the proposition of independence are the same across genders, but support for independence runs 11% higher amongst male respondents. Women are also much more likely to be undecided than their male fellow citizens, women's indecision running some 10% higher than men. Just as the 2011 Holyrood election called for the Nationalists to consider how best to appeal to the female section of the electorate, the Yes to Independence campaign will have to factor this gendered dimension into their strategies, if they are to prevail.
Men...
- Agree ~ 43%
- Disagree ~ 45%
- Don't know ~ 13%
Women...
- Agree ~ 32%
- Disagree ~ 45%
- Don't know ~ 23%
The total data is also broken down across six age groups. Perhaps predictably, opposition to independence significantly hardens as respondents get older, with over 65s reporting that they are the most inveterately opposed of all of the age groups.
18-24...
- Agree ~ 51%
- Disagree ~ 36%
- Don't know ~ 13%
25-34...
- Agree ~ 40%
- Disagree ~ 36%
- Don't know ~ 24%
35-44...
- Agree ~ 38%
- Disagree ~ 36%
- Don't know ~ 27%
45-54...
- Agree ~ 39%
- Disagree ~ 47%
- Don't know ~ 14%
55-64...
- Agree ~ 31%
- Disagree ~ 53%
- Don't know ~ 16%
65+ ...
- Agree ~ 28%
- Disagree ~ 57%
- Don't know ~ 15%
And social grading? Unlike the YouGov polling we became so familiar with during the Holyrood campaign, TNS-BMRB distinguish four social gradings, rather than lumping together ABC1s and C2DEs. Rather fascinating, this socially graded data shows a predominantly Unionist middle class, while working class voters and those living at the lowest levels of subsistence are the only grade who recorded a preference for independence, despite increased levels of indecision. Perhaps an echo of that bourgeois anti-nationalism, lately discussed in The Gurnian, Britishness & its one-faced Janus?
AB ...
- Agree ~ 29%
- Disagree ~ 58%
- Don't know ~ 13%
C1...
- Agree ~ 34%
- Disagree ~ 50%
- Don't know ~ 16%
C2...
- Agree ~ 37%
- Disagree ~ 42%
- Don't know ~ 21%
DE...
- Agree ~ 43%
- Disagree ~ 35%
- Don't know ~ 22%
For those with a geographical sensibility, you will particularly enjoy the results broken down by the different Holyrood electoral regions, and how far this does or does not correlate with the SNP's performance in those parts in the recent election. That said, sample sizes at this level are very small - mostly between 100 and 150 respondents. The breakdown across the eight regions was as follows...
Highlands and Islands...
- Agree ~ 25%
- Disagree ~ 47%
- Don't know ~ 28%
North East...
- Agree ~ 38%
- Disagree ~ 45%
- Don't know ~ 17%
Mid-Scotland and Fife...
- Agree ~ 33%
- Disagree ~ 41%
- Don't know ~ 26%
Lothians...
- Agree ~ 34%
- Disagree ~ 47%
- Don't know ~ 18%
Central Scotland...
- Agree ~ 39%
- Disagree ~ 45%
- Don't know ~ 16%
Glasgow...
- Agree ~ 46%
- Disagree ~ 39%
- Don't know ~ 15%
West Scotland...
- Agree ~ 41%
- Disagree ~ 44%
- Don't know ~ 16%
South Scotland...
- Agree ~ 34%
- Disagree ~ 53%
- Don't know ~ 13%
Source: Full data.
Women...
ReplyDeleteAgree ~ 32%
Disagree ~ 45%
Don't know ~ 23%
Alarming, any ideas how to win over the fairer sex.
A handsome male political leader always helps.
Swinny, Crawford, Salmond... mmn...
Gerard Butler?
I don't know, but serious money needs to be spent to identify what will attract female voters
AND
also, to find out what they don't find attractive.
Any ideas?
I'm leaving the heterocentrist sexist nonsense above alone, honest I am...
ReplyDeleteMy academic background is linguistics, and the classic gender research there is by Milroy and Milroy - they asked why men speak with more "working-class" linguistic features than women from the same social background and found answers around the differences in their lives. Women tend to have wider networks, to have more contacts with more people, wheras men have smaller, "denser" networks, where they work with, socialise with and often are related to the same people. There is also (relatedly?) a strong "working-class = masculine" link.
So. Do men have more "working-class-typical" political beliefs than women because a) men think working class = masculine = good? And perhaps because they are more embedded in their small communities?
Possibly that parallel doesn't work, but anyway, another key point from Milroy and Milroy's research is: if you stop asking "why are women so different?" and start asking "why are men so different?", you often get new angles and new ideas.
The most interesting result for me was that for Glasgow, the only region which seems to favour independence. Quite surprising, I'd have thought.
ReplyDelete@Scottish republic
ReplyDeleteComments like yours are one of the reasons, I believe, why women are more risk averse regarding Scottish independence than men. For us, we need to weigh the odds of meeting the new boss, same as the old boss, come the day. For instance, blog commenters who talk to a supposed all-male audience in the most patronising and sexist way possible.
I'd like to take @rebelraising up on the discussion: "Why are men so different?"
The one thing I find worse in Scotland than in other countries I know well is the degree to which a religious-backed macho culture (I mean all religions here, including the newer arrivals) suppresses women, enforces miserable (for both sexes) gender roles, and fosters an atmosphere of shame and degradation around sexuality.
The big problem I had with voting SNP, for instance, was their friendship with the homophobe Brian Souter (and in my experience homophobia and misogyny are deeply entwined). I took my MSP Nicola Sturgeon at her word that things are changing, for now, and voted for her anyway. But it scares me, oh yes it does, and I will want to be damn sure we have everything lined up to ensure maximum and sustainable advantage for women in overcoming long-standing cultural problems here.
How many men have these issues at the forefront of their mind when thinking about independence?
I think what this means is there's not going to be a referendum on independence.
ReplyDeleteMorag Eyrie said..."The big problem I had with voting SNP, for instance, was their friendship with the homophobe Brian Souter (and in my experience homophobia and misogyny are deeply entwined). "
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see your justification for using the homophobic label for Mr Souter, or Sir Brian as he now is. I have seen some try and fail, unless you know something that we do not?
After the uprising of the 17th of June
ReplyDeleteThe Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had thrown away the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
--Bertold Brecht
How many men have these issues at the forefront of their mind when thinking about independence?
ReplyDeleteWell, I certainly do, Morag. I won't say it is at the absolute forefront of my dislike for what the SNP seems to stand for, it's general 'left-wing' political positioning is at least as important a reason for me (as is the fact that I quite simply feel 'British' and want to remain so), but the friendship with and taking money from the arch-homophobe [now 'Sir'!] Brian Souter worries me greatly. I've written about this in my own blog and immediately been attacked for doing so by the usual SNP-zealots (not all supporters are zealots, of course, but some undoubtedly are); I worry too that one of the ways the SNP might try and increase its support in west-Central Scotland (where it needs to gain support, because that's where the population density is highest) it will make accommodations with some unattractive kinds of people (just as they seem to have with Souter).
Morag
ReplyDelete""Comments like yours are one of the reasons, I believe, why women are more risk averse regarding Scottish independence than men.""
I wasn't aware I'd made a comment, I was asking a question but if I were to make a comment, it would be that women are perhaps more careful about protecting the nest than men. Perhaps not but your comment seems to suggest so.
Bill,
must we list the Brit nat politicians that are in prison.
If we look at the Labour party with about 300 MPs.
If you lived in a community of 300 people with so many of them put in prison, you'd move somewhere else.
Moreover, in the last year one Labour MSP had to quit his post for his seedy comment in parliament and an Ediburgh councilor described a girl as probably meriting being raped (comments only reported because a woman police officer was present at the meeting).
John Souter has his religious views which neither I nor the great majority of Scot nats agree with but religion is something I don't believe in.
Silly talk about John Souter.
We're talking about our country's future and the Brit nat starts on about personality... negative.
Morag Eyrie said..."The big problem I had with voting SNP, for instance, was their friendship with the homophobe Brian Souter (and in my experience homophobia and misogyny are deeply entwined). "
ReplyDeleteI agree. And the other side of the sectarian divide is covered as well, with Archbishop O'Brien being a supporter and financier (via Tom Farmer) of the SNP.
It worries me that a new, small and vulnerable country would (if we were ever daft enough to vote for independence) have a Nationalist Party funded by, and therefore beholden to, Souter, Tom Farmer and the ArchBish.
Think Ireland circa 1925....
John Souter has his religious views which neither I nor the great majority of Scot nats agree with but religion is something I don't believe in.
ReplyDeleteSilly talk about John Souter.
Talk about disingenuous diversionary tactics! The man being talked about is not John Souter, but Brian Souter, one of the most powerful and wealthiest business-people in the UK, never mind Scotland and who put a significant amount of his own money (GBP1mio) into the campaign to prevent 'Clause 28' (2a in Scotland) being removed from the statutes; this was in support of the Conservative campaign of the time and is the major reason why I am no longer a member of that Party. The man is a religiously-based homophobic nutter. End of. He has also more recently given money to a rather too welcoming SNP, which itself is mainly free of such nutters, but regrettably not entirely so (e.g. Roseanna Cunningham and some others) - and money talks. I loathe the Labour Party, but one of the few good things they did was to advance gay equality, something one of the SNP's major financial backers (Souter) is viscerally opposed to. So yes, I am a little concerned (a lot concerned) to see the SNP cozying-up to such a person.
We have a country to liberate, and thus money helps in campaigns.
ReplyDeleteJust how do you imagine Brian Souter's personal views will affect SNP policy?
In truth, this is bllx.
YOu Brit nats just open your mouths and say anything that might maybe perhaps just possibly score a wee point somewhere with someone.
Tiresome negativity.
Consider more, the Brit nats : buying Trident; going off to war 3 maybe 4 times now if Syria is to be the next target; using Scotland's oil to fund their war and support their financial stupidity; destroying the economy though incompetence... the list goes on and on and on and on.
Re Souter. I’d hasten to add that his Knighthood was for services to Transport and Charity. Good or bad we have to recognise his involvement in transport, at the instigation of Thatcher’s deregulatory Tories has changed the face of transport in the UK and furth. His charitable trust has donated over £20 million to organisations such as the Bethany Christian Trust, Mary’s Meal, Against Malaria Foundation and most surprisingly the AIDS Care Education and Training trust. Surely that cuts him a bit of slack from his avowedly narrow religious beliefs? Or do we all simply become haters like homophobes?
ReplyDeleteThe greatest interest I have in our bewigged friend’s break-down of these previously uncrunched numbers is the outright dominance of the pro-Independence movement in Scots under 45. Increasingly, elderly folk like poor old Braveheart are succumbing to the effects of Scotland’s woeful longevity statistics, and dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the fit, healthy fresh faced 18-24 year old Scots are the new majority by quite some considerable gap… 51% for Independence versus 36% against. The future looks Independent.
As to the gender question, I don’t think it’s particularly worrying as women are traditionally smarter and more cautious than their blundering heart-on-the-sleeve blokey counterparts. The inevitability of Sturgeon being the very first First Minister in an Independent Scotland, is surely a considerable contribution to redressing the gender imbalance. Also look at the big hitting women in the SNP ranks, notably the most recent intake, versus Labour's paltry few and the direction is obvious.
What is worrying for our British nation chums here is the increasingly poor numbers who see any real benefit in remaining with the Union. That must be of huge concern.
Curious however, that my mildly humourous question should elicit such a relatively hysterical reaction way out of proportion with its near forgettable content, which then moved onto a discussion about the SNP posibly being bribed into a state of homophobia and then championed by the Brit nats who dreamed of this very moment to score that vital point that just... just might win... something or other in their imaginations.
ReplyDeleteNegativity and false argument ballasted with phony discussion is the Brit nat spin we have had to bear since Blair put on the crown and they just can't stop it, can they?
Labour is the disease, the Tories are the symptom.
Vote YES
Slightly naive to assume that anything with "AIDS" in the title is not homophobic - ACET has a "Christian ethos" and is associated with the "ABC: abstain, be faithful, then use condoms" approach, which has some detractors, not least those who point out that women and girls being raped have few opportunities to use those options.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the vast majority, if not all, of Souter's donations are to explicitly Christian charities, and to me as a queer feminist and secularist, the tone of those charities is not a tone I want to be set for a future independent Scotland.
Also: giving one million pounds to campaign against LGB families being no longer described in legislation as "pretended" is a homophobic thing to do. The fact that he has said he'd rather live on a scheme having spent all his money campaigning to retain that homophobic law implies that it is a major priority for him to give his money where he thinks it will have most homophobic effect.
Also, people, please:
"women are perhaps more careful about protecting the nest than men."
"women are traditionally smarter and more cautious than their blundering heart-on-the-sleeve blokey counterparts."
Can we have a higher and less fantasy-based - possibly even data-based? - level of discussion here?
Braveheart: "think Ireland circa 1925"
ReplyDeleteDo you seriously think Ireland should have continued to be governed by Britain?
Mark
ReplyDeleteMight it be that nationalism is an infantile disorder that people grow out of?
The figures also suggest that the higher the socio economic class (which probably has some correlation with educational achievement) the lower the support for nationalism.
As for the calibre of SNP politicians, with the exception of Salmond, none of them would be anything other than bench warmers at Westminster.
My tuppence worth is that I agree with Scottish Republic - women are probably more concerned with protecting what they think is important and are concerned by any perceived risks involved with independence whereas men may be more motivated by the increased opportunities and freedom which indepdence would bring, which for them outweighs the risks.
ReplyDeleteThat is of course a sweeping generalisation but I think it may come close to explaining what the polls tell us.
And I don't think it is necessarily a problem for the SNP because of the way in which many of the social values and institutions which women care about are being undermined south of the border.
So it's quite rational to argue that independence offers the best chance of protecting the NHS, for example, as a universal public service free at the point of need.
rebelraising
ReplyDelete""""women are perhaps more careful about protecting the nest than men."
"women are traditionally smarter and more cautious than their blundering heart-on-the-sleeve blokey counterparts."
Can we have a higher and less fantasy-based - possibly even data-based? - level of discussion here?""""
Fraid not, all we have is bizanecdotal evidence and general knowledge to play with. My original question, which the Brit nats nicely turned into a bizzare attack on the SNP, originally pointed to the idea that actal research may need to be done.
Till then, my view is that women are more cautious about adventuring than men and want hard facts offered them, which is altogether a reasonable position for the XXs to take.
I await the Brit nats commenting on the XX symbolism as some sort of allusion to the celebrated 20th legion in ancient Rome, no doubt with a spot of Greek wrestling thrown in for good measure.
...anecdotal...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is telling Mark what he thinks and is spouting utter tosh.
ReplyDeleteBut thanks for that, it's just the sort of preprogrammed argument that leaves the brit nats at the starting gates. The SNP is the majority party because the Scots think your Westminsterites and Labourites and Tories (yuck) are all crap and don't represent their values.
Scottish republic said...
ReplyDelete'Anonymous is telling Mark what he thinks'
That's kinda how people communicate with one another round these parts.
Must be different where you're from.
@Scottish republic: Your comments here started out not too bad then went downhill. IANA expert, but the later ones strike me as the sort of thing likely to alienate the undecided.
ReplyDeleteThe first rule of selling, whether independence or fridges, is to listen to what the punters are saying. Nowhere on any list that I've seen does it say to shout insults at passersby. You may be giving a practical demonstration of one of the reasons why the gender difference exists. I could be wrong though.
Scottish republic you label those who disagrees with you as Brit nats.
ReplyDeleteNot a compliment in your circles.
In worsening economic times women carry the can more than men.
That Glasgow, a working class city, and more its male population, is most in favour of independence may be a reflection of their willingness to work their way out of economic woes.
For me, the gems to be plucked from this trove are higher support for independence amongst younger (not surprising) and Glasgow (surprising).
ReplyDeleteAs regards gender and risk aversion, there is much evidence concluding that females are more risk averse than their male counterparts. But dig deeper and ask why. At least one piece of research set out to uncover the reasons for this and concluded that female risk aversion is cultural (learned) as opposed to innate (hereditary). http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3973
I'm agnostic on the significance, either way.
terrence
ReplyDeleteBill and Braveheart (anonymous) are Brit nats.
They managed to turn my simple question into this farce but that's what Brit nats on the net do.
Anyway, I'm going to have a look at Graham's link.
Couldn't get your link to work Graham but found this which uses the vox article.
ReplyDeletehttp://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/09/gender-risk-and-competition.html
It's interesting and shows that cultural factors may make girls more risk aversed.
Would this risk aversion last till adulthood, well yes apparently, if the tribal observtions are to be believed. Thus, the functionality of our independent Scotland will have to be proved to the 10% female vote who DON'T KNOW. This is what I thought and it makes sense.
I see what your point Scottish republic.
ReplyDeletePlaying bogey man cards fools few.
If we have 2 referenda the whole scary deck will be played before the second.
@Angus McLellan ".... The first rule of selling, whether independence or fridges...."
ReplyDeleteThe first rule of selling is to have a good product to sell, and Scottish "independence" is not agood product.
The second rule is to know your product's strengths and weaknesses and be prepared to promote and defend accordingly.
Having a poor product, or being unable to articulate, leads to bad salemanship.
I have to say I have not seen any positive case for independence in many years of debating with Nationalists online and offline..
In the case of NatBloggers, no positive case is put for independence and insults are offered in place of argument.
It's quite frustrating, but I keep trying just in case a positive Nat turns up with a well articulated case for and the ability to sell "independence".
I don't think it is about being risk averse or not risk averse.
ReplyDeleteI think it is about what would make a risk worthwhile.
The SNP has traditionally promoted independence in terms of the opportunities and the increased freedom it could bring. With independecne we could do X, Y or Z whuch we cannot current;y do within the constraints of the Union.
But it is just as valid to say independence will allow us to protect X, Y or Z which will be under threat if we stay in the Union.
And I suspect the second argument would resonate more with women voters than with men. Not because they are less risk averse than men but because they may be more focussed on others than on themselves.
Indy, I'm coming to that view after seeing different reactions around the web.
ReplyDeleteWell I've been called many things before, but "Brit Nat" is quite amusing - and probably quite accurate - I won't run away from the tag, rather brandish it with a flourish! ;)
ReplyDeleteMy scepticism about the motives of the SNP in its desire to get its [political] way is because of the kind of thing that someone calling him-/her-self "Key bored Warrior" seems to think it funny, or in any way justifiable, to write, seemingly from an SNP-supporting standpoint:
"It would be interesting to see your justification for using the homophobic label for Mr Souter, or Sir Brian as he now is. I have seen some try and fail, unless you know something that we do not?"
- Oh, I know that bigots of Mr (I won't refer to him as 'Sir' here or anyplace else at least until he has been formally knighted and perhaps not even then - so sue me!) Souter's kind deny they are 'homophobes' whilst still pursuing openly homophobic policies, no doubt quoting Bible scriptures to try and justify their odious views, but I just ain't buying into that particular hypocrisy. The man is a crazed homophobic nutter. End of. Why is the SNP taking money from him? Excuse me whilst I retch!
You're trying to rationalise something, nationalism, which is based on emotion, not reason.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, it's largely based on emotion the idea of being Scots. Most states of mind/existence are based that.
ReplyDeletebas
Calling it emotion is saying it's not based on an appreciation of who you are and where you come from.
We have !Bill who intends to flourish his being a Brit nat based on an emotional connection to the idea.
All that said, Scotland is a nation, always has been a nation and has a right to seek nation stutus if it so desires.
the reason is economic and moral as we desire a society that is fair and caring.
Salmond bases his debates and campaigns on reasoned argument and has done a good job. !the Scots seem to think so and they voted based on their economic choice of a good SNP government rather than a poor Labour government.
YOur protests are just Labourite dogma. Do something, join the SNP and make a change.
Scotland is, as you say, a nation. It is however not a state. The SNP doesn't appear to have any education policy for its members, which is very telling. It would be unkind to characterise the membership as young and dumb, but that's what it looks like, and I suppose that has advantages for the leadership.
ReplyDeleteThe turnout for the Holyrood election was around 50%.
The Labour vote held steady.
The Lib Dems voted SNP.
So that's the SNP got the Lib Dem vote, for the time being.
It will be interesting to see if they can hold on to it the way they've managed to hold on to the Tory vote.
The nats seem to assume that there is an irreversable tide running in favour of independence. I'm not so sure. A no vote and it could be that this is a high water mark, rather like the 1955 election was for the Tories.
Anonymous you are in deep denial!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeletethere was a swing of between 5% and 10% from Labour to the SNP depending on the constituency.
The Labour vote overall held steady (a bit less) from the lowest vote ever in 2007.
Social democracy is in the SNP's heart, to make life better for the Scottish people.
There is nothing forcing Labour activists to stay in the union and no basis for Labour being the party of the union in Scotland. It's frankly ridiculous that decent Labour people think they have to support the union, no reason to.
Labour has no soul and is now going off further to the right than ever before as Ed Milli starts quoting Blair and Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith as he positions himself for the Essex vote.
If you want social democracy, that is possible in Scotland and entirely viable in an independent Scotland.
The Labourites are going to continue the lie that the Scots are too poor to look after themselves when Scotland is in surplus.
We can do better than this with independence and create a society that is fair and the opposite of what the Tories (red or blue) want.
Brit nat or Scot nat is the choice.
Anon. you talk of the Labour vote, the Tory vote. Are these adjectives to indicate possession?
ReplyDeleteAnd me thinkig it was my vote.
As for "young and dumb", you mean working class.
And the Lib-Dems voted SNP?
How dare they. The wee neds.
They'll have to be brought to book.
terrence
ReplyDeleteAnd doubtless your vote is part of the SNP vote.
Though it's interesting you regard it in such a proprietorial way.
By dumb I mean ignorant. As in not knowing the difference between a state and a country. For someone espousing a nationalist cause that sort of stuff is just about as basic as it gets.
Anon. wilful misinterpretation is no substitute for answering questions.
ReplyDeleteterrence
ReplyDeleteAnd a soundbite is no substitute for rational discourse.
Terrence says "you talk of the Labour vote, the Tory vote. Are these adjectives to indicate possession? And me thinkig it was my vote.", as prime a piece of wilful misinterpretation you're ever likely to come across....
ReplyDeleteAnd then Terrence says "wilful misinterpretation is no substitute for answering questions."
Such lack of self awareness, you couldn't make it up.
Anon, I know it's good to think well of your fellow man, but you'll go a long mile before you get a real discussion on independence (or much else) with most Nationalist bloggers.
terrence being a prime example.
To address your point: not knowing the difference between a nation and a state is par for the course with NatBloggers.
They're driven by emotion, mainly feelings of deep grievance (against the English, the world, anyone who tries to reason with them) and inadequacy, not reason.
Sad. But. True
Braveheart shows yet again he considers party more important than social democracy in action.
ReplyDeleteFollowing yesterday's speech by Ed Milliband, we can see that intends taking the Labourites even further off to the right than was thought possible.
You Labourites are the ditraction to social democracy being the way of life in Scotland.
The Labourites seem to think they are the party of union.
Nothing says you are the party of union, nothing stops you from creating a social democratic state in Scotland.
The Brit nat view is betrayal of the working people of Scotland.
Braveheart and anon. - answer the question or refute the allegation.
ReplyDeleteYawn inducing nit picking is not my bag.
Nor unnecessary verbiage and rhetoric.
neque argumentum ad hominem
ReplyDeleteterrence, if you mean "young and dumb", anon answered: it's obvious from the results that young people support "independence" in the poll.
ReplyDeleteAs for "dumb", here's his/her response verbatim "By dumb I mean ignorant. As in not knowing the difference between a state and a country. For someone espousing a nationalist cause that sort of stuff is just about as basic as it gets."
Interesting how Alex Gallacher a.k.a. 'Braveheart' refuses to answer whether he believes Ireland 'circa 1925' should have remained under British rule.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant, and what you and all the other Nat Bloggers are avoiding facing, is that a small, newly independent country with a powerful religious lobby is not a place I, nor I suspect te majority of Scots, would like to be.
ReplyDeleteThe religious lobby in Scotland is funding the Nationalist Party and the religious lobby wants "independence" because the religious people believe they will get, in return for their investment in the SNP, influence in a newly "independent" Scotland (if we are ever daft enough to vote for it).
You, nor no-one else here, has the guts to face the argument and try to find a counter-argument.
So tell me: why are Brian Souter and Archbishop Keith pouring millions into the SNP, if not for the reasons I have outlined? What are they buying?
Quite frankly, that's because it's a lot of speculative nonsense. There's no chance that the church in Scotland will end up interfering with the state. I would suggest your spare time would be better exercised coming up with some reasons why Scots should once again vote Labour at future elections.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, there were less than 50 independent countries 100 years ago. Theres now over 190. Are they daft too? Just like the poor wee Irish?
Anon "Quite frankly, that's because it's a lot of speculative nonsense. "
ReplyDeleteAnd "independence" isn't?
Or do you have the thought out case for "independence" that the others haven't got?
If so, let's debate it...