Saturday, January 16, 2016

Independence Poll of Polls remains deadlocked at exactly 50/50

The Survation poll released on Thursday night also contained an independence question.  Independence polls seem to be even rarer than Holyrood voting intention polls these days - we haven't had one since November, which is really quite weird, given that you'd think there would be enormous interest in discovering whether the substantial Yes leads shown by TNS and Ipsos-Mori in September can be replicated in other phone or face-to-face polls.  Unfortunately, the new poll was conducted among an online volunteer polling panel, so it doesn't take us any further forward on the question of whether the TNS and Ipsos-Mori findings were freakish - but it does strongly suggest that the gains made by the Yes camp since the referendum have not been reversed.  For the time being, the uncertainty will continue over just how big those gains have been.

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (Survation, 8th -12th January) :

Yes 49.2% (-0.1)
No 50.8% (+0.1)

The fact that the rounded headline numbers are absolutely unchanged makes the calculation of the Poll of Polls refreshingly easy.  Yes remains on the all-time high of exactly 50% reached in the previous update - and there would be an outright Yes lead if an ICM poll that is almost a year old were to be removed from the sample.  The snag, though, is that there's no particular reason to assume that a new ICM poll would show a boost for Yes - the last one may have been relatively good for No because of ICM's methodology, and not because Yes have progressed further since March.

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 50.0% (n/c)
No 50.0% (n/c)

MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 46.3% (n/c)
No 46.3% (n/c)

MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 49.2% (n/c)
No 50.8% (n/c)

(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the firms that have polled on independence since the referendum, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - YouGov, TNS, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample.)

Survation asked the EU referendum question as well, and found that the Scottish electorate currently break almost 2-1 in favour of the Remain position.  That result is directly comparable with Survation's Britain-wide online polls, which have consistently shown the race is more or less level-pegging.  Such a huge divergence leaves Colin Kidd looking a bit silly after his Guardian article suggesting that all parts of Britain might easily vote for Brexit, thus scuppering the hopes that a second independence referendum would be triggered by a 'Leave' vote.  In truth, there is very little prospect of Scotland voting Leave.  There may well also be a mountain to be climbed for the Outers at UK level, but if by any chance they do make it to the top, we'll almost certainly find that Scotland and England have voted different ways - and no amount of SNP ambivalence or tactical voting will change that fact.  Neither is Kidd correct in suggesting that UKIP's Scottish seat in the European Parliament is evidence that Scottish and English public opinion is less different than is commonly supposed.  All we have to do is look at the vote shares - on a low turnout, UKIP received 10.5% of the Scottish vote in 2014, which is more than 6% lower than they managed in London (by far their weakest region in England).  Their Britain-wide figure was 26.6%.

If I was going to hazard a guess, I'd say that Kidd is a pro-European professor casting around for ways of shocking Nicola Sturgeon into campaigning passionately for Remain.  But I doubt if she needs much persuading on that score, which is just as well given the total implausibility of Kidd's pitch.

79 comments:

  1. We ve been in the EU under various guises for 40 odd years.Its very much the status quo.To leave would be a big change.A step into the unknown,even.Now,we all know that people get more resistant to change as the get older.More conservative.When we look at the tables for this survation poll we can expect to see the over 55s being much less likely to want to leave the comfort/security/known quantity of the EU.Right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kidd had a letter published this week in the National where he criticised the SNP yet begged for SNP supporters to give their second vote to RISE. Kidd is not to be trusted.

      Delete
    2. Who's he kidding!....

      Delete
    3. When we look at the tables for this survation poll we can expect to see the over 55s being much less likely to want to leave the comfort/security/known quantity of the EU.Right?

      As I suspect you know very well, the tables show that as usual older voters are more likely to want to leave than younger voters:

      http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Final-Scomnibus-I-Tables-DR-1c0d2h9-51.pdf#page=22

      Voters 55+: Remain 49%. Leave 30% (+19)

      Voters 16-34: Remain 56%. Leave 23% (+33)

      Though both group are heavily in favour of staying.

      There's nothing strange about this. In both this and IndyRef more are choosing a longer-established institution (the UK) over a more recent or just proposed one (the EU, an Independent Scotland). So it's a consistent viewpoint.

      But it does raise an interesting contrast with the wider UK picture. When Survation last asked about EU voting intentions (30 Nov - 3 Dec 15):

      http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ADDE-Tables-for-Release.pdf#page=6

      Voters 55+: Remain 33%. Leave 51% (-18)

      Voters 16-34: Remain 53%. Leave 30% (+23)

      while younger voters are only slightly more opposed than in Scotland, the difference between the two groups of older voters is much greater. Older English and Welsh voters (Northern Ireland's overall figures are similar to Scotland's) are much more opposed than their northern counterparts and it's these people who might (though I think it unlikely) lead to an overall UK exit vote.

      (Obviously if the UK does vote to leave, it won't actually happen anyway, in true EU fashion they'll just keep voting till they get the 'right' answer - but that's another topic).

      Delete
    4. It's certainly not a consistent viewpoint, it's totally inconsistent. Older voters prefer the status quo on the independence question, but oppose the status quo on the EU question. There's a simple explanation for that (older people can remember what it's like to be outside the EU/Common Market), but it's still clearly a contradiction.

      On your last point, I'm surprised to see you allying yourself with the tinfoil hat brigade.

      Delete
    5. There's a really simply explanation for this. Older folks are more 'British' in identity. British as an identity peaks in those born in 1944 into the world of the post war consensus. A period of rapid growth and increasing prosperity, but most importantly, a time when Scotland first became really British with all the shared 'British' things around like nationalised industries and institutions.

      Britishness declines after that with young people coming of voting age right now the least British of any generation in Scotland. Comfortably over 70% 'Scottish only' compared to 62% for the population as a whole.

      In folk born before 1944 you see British identity actually trailing off with age, although the numbers of people in this group drops off quickly too for obvious reasons. 'British' is quite a young thing even though the union is 309 years old.

      For most of its existence, Scotland was just Scotland and part of the English (British) Empire. That's why you had Scotland moving to home rule just before the World wars. Post-war socialism turned this around and gave people good reasons to feel British.

      That's all gone now of course with Britain very right-wing; a major factor driving its break-up.

      You can't nation-build with right wing 'me me me' policies; you need solidarity / shared things. Certainly not when your state comprises a number of nations with their own primary identities anyway.

      Delete
    6. Of those born in 1944, 34% freely put 'British' as part of their identity (2011 census). Only 59% put just Scottish; the lowest of any generation.

      In contrast, for those born in 1996 (thus 17 when the census was done), only 21% voluntarily put down British as part of their identity. 74% put just Scottish. Devolution really quicken the demise of Britishness / encouraged just Scottish to shoot up.

      --

      Figures for born in 1926 (or before) are 29% British component vs 63% Scottish only. No data for earlier as people are not around any more obviously.

      This is why the UK is a ticking time bomb.

      Need a new post-war consensus to save it, not a right-wing dystopia.

      Delete
    7. Sorry, should be 15 when the census was done so getting old enough declare their own natID rather than having it decided by their folks...

      Delete
  2. I have always been pro-EU, but we must realise that if the UK votes to leave, then negotiations to that effect will start between the Commission and the Westminster government. It will take several years, a fact which commentators ignore.
    But I cannot see a Scotref2 occurring before 2020, by which time we will be on our way out of the EU.
    So we then have to figure out---are we going to get decent entry terms from an organisation which has proved unwilling to be friendly toward either Scotland or Catalonia ?
    If not then we may have to work toward a Norwegian/Swiss style trade deal with the EU. I wouldn't be averse to that, though we will still be paying in, with no say, but we would only have a limited say in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 12:47 PM

    Good that support for Independence is holding steady despite the constant continuation of Project Fear by the MSM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 4:59 PM

      Get yer oan nom de plume ye Nat si tosser.

      Delete
    2. I presume the "Class" element in your comment name is ironic?

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM

      I have used that handle well before you infected it and will continue to use it.

      Delete
  4. "Independence polls seem to be even rarer than Holyrood voting intention polls these days"

    The Yoonatics are hiding their heads up their asses because they don't want to hear the result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's a yoonatic?

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 4:55 PM

      I think the poster was referring to you but put a y instead of an l.

      Delete
  5. Seems clear to me that had there been a positive MSM and BBC coverage of the Referendum we would now be independent.
    These figure are amazing considering the continuing hostility of those state, political establishment and corporate outlets.
    We should also bear in mind there is a solid Tory block in Scotland who are entirely against independence, that won't change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 5:16 PM

      And Labour Unionists. We gubbed ye take it like a man and stop yer perpetual moanin. You are like an old 78 RPM stuck on the turntable and so boring.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 5:23 PM

      Spin me round and round like a broken Daily Record.

      Delete
  6. Just a thought - and not a recommendation - if there is another IndyRef, caused by Westminster telling us Scots that we are leaving the EU SOLELY because that is the wish of, overwhelmingly, the English people on these islands over-ruling our preference, should Indyref2 specifically exclude the 400,000 English folk living in Scotland?

    Just a question - not a statement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM

      So ye want independence fae the English and sell yerself tae Herman. Another beggin bowl with handouts. You jokes hiv nae shame and self respect. Stick the euro up yer erse Franky Boye.

      Delete
    2. Talking like a five-year-old, adds nothing to the debate.

      If you can find your brain - engage it.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 7:46 PM

      Selling Scotland out to Europe is is for the braindead Nat sis. If Scotland joins the EU then we have the euro and being dictated too by the big guns Germany and France. You know this and you would sell Scotland out to them.

      Delete
    4. @David Francis

      It is a ridiculous idea to exclude anyone over the age of 16, and living in Scotland, from voting in a future independence referendum. I genuinely have no idea why you support this idea.

      Delete
    5. I did not say I supported it - I said I am finding it harder and harder to support the idea that, if the majority of people born in Scotland wish to leave a political union, that should be negated and reversed by people who were not born in Scotland.

      Delete
    6. I did not say I supported it - I said I am finding it harder and harder to support the idea that, if the majority of people born in Scotland wish to leave a political union, that should be negated and reversed by people who were not born in Scotland.

      Why's it hard to support? If they live here, it affects them. Who cares where they were born? You might as well base it on eye colour.

      Delete
    7. Interesting thought. I'm wondering if you have any other interesting thoughts that are most certainly, 100% not recommendations. Maybe special English sections on the bus, somewhere at the back. Or maybe even a special marker so you can distinguish them. I'm thinking an armband with a yellow St. George's cross. Of course, it would only be a thought, I'm sure. Not a recommendation in the slightest. But something has to be done about those dastardly English, right?

      Delete
    8. Surely you must have missed something out on my "resume"?

      Yep, rather than mention the issue Idid....I should probably be hung, drawn, quartered, boiled in oil, buried in an unmarked grave - and then dug up and go through it all again.

      I should definitely be banned and prevented from ever asking any "bad" question ever again.

      In fact, I should probably have been strangled at birth, wrapped in a Nazi flag and burned on a funeral pyre.

      I think that about covers it, eh?

      You really, really do not like questions, you do not like.

      Do you?

      Delete
    9. No one's asked you to be banned from asking any question. We have asked you to give a single reason why your proposal would be fair. So far, you haven't done so.

      Delete
    10. Don't act like the persecuted martyr, David. Nobody's stopping you from saying what you want. If you want raise the idea of disenfranchising an entire section of the population based on their national original because it would be politically convenient then you have every right to do so. Just as other people have the right to say that such an idea is utterly disgusting and more befitting of the far right (And I'm talking even further to the right than UKIP) than anybody in a civilised, democratic society.

      Delete
    11. You obviously are used to flinging Nazi connotations at people who say things you don't like.

      Excuse me if I respond accordingly, to such obnoxious, offensive crap, in a way I think befits it.

      You don't like my response - well do not suggest that I might just be akin to a Nazi.

      If you do, I will similarly treat you as something sticking to my shoe.

      Delete
  7. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM

    No, it should not. Postal votes for those living in Scotland though and not to those with second homes here as happened a lot in the Referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps, but a reasonable view could also be postulated that the future of Scotland, in perpetuity, should perhaps not be decided by English residents up here who, by all the available evidence, are overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining the Union with England.

      They are, of course, perfectly entitled to feel that way - but it is out-of-kilter with what the majority of people born up here wish and it could be understandable to suggest that people born here should have the decisive say?

      Delete
  8. How likely is it that the UK as a whole will just vote to stay in, with Scottish votes just tipping the balance? Looks to me as if it's finely balanced in Engalandshire - so our smaller numbers could tip it. The Daily Mail comments will be entertaining!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Just a thought - and not a recommendation - if there is another IndyRef, caused by Westminster telling us Scots that we are leaving the EU SOLELY because that is the wish of, overwhelmingly, the English people on these islands over-ruling our preference, should Indyref2 specifically exclude the 400,000 English folk living in Scotland?"

    No, because though I was born in England, I'm a Scottish resident and Scotland is my country. What people living in England voted has nothing to do with me. Many of those English residents who voted NO will have been Scots by birth. All the usual arguments against ethnic nationalism apply. The only thing I would agree with perhaps is a minimum time to have been permanently resident in Scotland, perhaps 2 years or so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your evidence that "many of those English residents who voted NO will have been Scots by birth"?

      I certainly have not seen any.

      I am aware of the arguments on both sides of this, but find it increasingly difficult to argue against the idea that indigenous Scots should have the final say on this.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad to say that the Independence referendum franchise was civic, not ethnic. People of all origins who live in Scotland made the decision and will make the next one too. If we go down the ethnic route we will end up with a situation like Bosnia, and ethnic cleansing. That is not the sort of Scotland I want to live in, though I would qualify on both counts.

      Delete
    3. Who the heck is suggesting Bosnian-Style ethnic cleansing?

      You really need to keep your hyperbole under control a bit better.

      Delete
    4. Sorry David, that was poorly explained. What I meant to say was that in the EU referendum, there will be Scots living south of the border who will vote for Brexit.

      Delete
  10. Even asking the question smacks of racism . I was born in England but have lived in Scotland for 23 years, my son was born here, and I am sure that my wife, my son and I will eventually die here. Please explain to me why I should be denied a say in Scotland's future simply because I was born in a different land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am merely suggesting that it may be slightly debatable that a mere 10% of the total Scottish Electorate, who just happen to be English - the vast majority of whom favour the Union - should be able to determine the future direction of Scotland.

      That is not remotely racist and only a fool would suggest it was.

      If the majority of indigenous Scots wish one thing and that is thwarted by the votes of folk who have moved here but are wedded to a political union which most Scots wish to leave - is that acceptable/fair?

      Again, I am merely asking a question.

      This is a debating forum, is it not?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. However you try to dress this up, it amounts to ethnic nationalism. So my answer to your question is a definite no no.

      Delete
    4. I am dressing nothing up at all.

      I am asking a very straightforward question and appreciate your considered reply.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    5. If the majority of indigenous Scots wish one thing and that is thwarted by the votes of folk who have moved here but are wedded to a political union which most Scots wish to leave - is that acceptable/fair?

      Yes, it's acceptable and fair. The question's been answered several times here, but for some reason you keep asking it, without putting forward a single argument for why people born outside of Scotland should be excluded.

      Delete
    6. And yet, we will shortly be casting our ballots in an EU Referendum which will ban from voting, approx 3 Million EU citizens presently legally resident in the UK, without (to my mind) a single argument why they should be excluded from that vote.

      That has been held to be acceptable and fair by both Westminster and the EU.

      Delete
    7. My considered reply is NO - it's a bad idea.

      Delete
    8. And yet, we will shortly be casting our ballots in an EU Referendum which will ban from voting, approx 3 Million EU citizens presently legally resident in the UK, without (to my mind) a single argument why they should be excluded from that vote.

      That has been held to be acceptable and fair by both Westminster and the EU.


      Yep, and they're wrong. But the fact that one referendum is being held under unfair rules doesn't mean that another should be.

      Delete
    9. That is your view and I accept it.

      Does not take away from the fact that all the legal authorities and the political authorities both in Westminster and Brussels, have accepted that the EU Referendum voting-parameters are both fair and acceptable.

      These arrangements also seem to be accepted by most potential British voters themselves.

      Whether you like it or not, there are conflicting and legitimate views on these issues and not only south of the Border.

      Delete
    10. Whether you like it or not, there are conflicting and legitimate views on these issues and not only south of the Border.

      That's an appeal to authority, not a justification for your proposal.

      So tell me, why does it make more sense to disenfranchise people according to their place of birth than, say, their gender? After all, studies indicate that most men voted yes. Why should we be held back by women?

      Delete
    11. I posed a question...I did not make a proposal.

      The question arose during another, bigger debate I had recently, with exclusively Yes supporters.

      The question is being debated out there, no matter how much it offends you.

      Having played Devil's Advocate on here with it, however, my own opinion is that we need to adhere to the same method of voting as we had in IndyRef1 - that anyone the age of 16 and over, who is resident in Scotland, gets a vote.

      The arguments for doing that, in my view, outweigh the arguments for not doing it.

      Having now made my own opinion crystal clear, I must also reiterate that the contrary opinion is presently being actively discussed.

      Delete
    12. Having played Devil's Advocate on here with it, however, my own opinion is that we need to adhere to the same method of voting as we had in IndyRef1 - that anyone the age of 16 and over, who is resident in Scotland, gets a vote.

      The arguments for doing that, in my view, outweigh the arguments for not doing it.


      What are these arguments for not doing it, then, which you think have some merit? You still haven't said. For example, can you answer my own question in the previous post: why is it fairer to disenfranchise people based on birthplace than it is to do so based on gender?

      Delete
    13. The arguments I have heard for disenfranchising certain people, seem to mirror the ones espoused by the UK Govt, in respect of approx 3 Million EU citizens currently resident, working and paying taxes in Britain, being barred from voting in the pending EU Referendum - and the fact that this arrangement has been approved by all the necessary legal and political authorities.

      As for "fairness" - like "beauty", I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder.

      Delete
    14. The arguments I have heard for disenfranchising certain people, seem to mirror the ones espoused by the UK Govt, in respect of approx 3 Million EU citizens currently resident, working and paying taxes in Britain, being barred from voting in the pending EU Referendum - and the fact that this arrangement has been approved by all the necessary legal and political authorities.

      Can you give an example of such an argument which you think has some validity?

      Delete
    15. I think the fact that the UK Govt is actually carrying this argument out, with legal authority behind it, validates it in the eyes of some up here.

      Whether you, or I, like that argument, is not really relevant to its validity.

      I have already given you my own opinion.

      Delete
    16. I guess you're never going to give an actual example of one of these arguments.

      Delete
    17. Okay, help me out, then. Complete this sentence: "An argument advanced by the UK government for basing the franchise on birth, and which I think has some merit, is..."

      Delete
    18. You are flogging a dead nag, pal.

      I said there were arguments out there on both sides of this and there are.

      I said that both had validity and they do - to the ones who are promoting them.

      Whether you or I think that any of them, on either side, have "merit" is totally beside the point.

      All I did was to ask a question on here and try to get a debate going on that question.

      As I said previously, I have clearly stated my opinion on it.

      Delete
  11. So you are suggesting that only people who are born in Scotland can ever be regarded as truly Scots -and that only these people should be given political rights in Scotland. That sounds a fairly dodgy argument to me.

    I think that the future of Scotland should be decided by those who have made Scotland their home wherever they were born - be that Scotland, England, Pakistan, Syria, Wales etc. Given that approx 90% of those who live in Scotland are Scottish-born would appear to guarantee those who you describe as "indigenous Scots" sufficient say in determining that future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, that is not what I am suggesting.

      I was talking only about the Referendum - no other political process.

      It is alleged that a majority of people born in Scotland voted to leave the Union - and that decision was basically overturned by a majority of people who were not.

      I am simply asking if, in determining the future of this Country, probably in perpetuity, that is fair.

      Delete
    2. @David Francis

      You really are digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself with every post you make on the subject of excluding hundreds of thousands of voters from the right to vote in a future independence referendum in Scotland. Thankfully the Scottish Government did not listen to the likes of you. They made the right democratic decision. If you are an real independence supporter then I am embarrassed to be on the same side as you.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 8:01 PM

      I was born in Scotland and so wis ma maw and da. However I had an English and Scottish grannie and two Irish grandfathers. It is very difficult even pretending to be a Scottish Nat si. Lets face it Great Britain was physically attached to Europe when the dinosaur muppet Franky Bhoy was born.

      Delete
    4. I am merely asking a question, nothing more.
      Yes I voted for Indy..and will do so again, under whatever system is in force.

      Whether you like the question I have posed, or not, does not really concern me - neither does your embarrassment.

      No hole being dug, just a question being asked.

      That is what these forums are for, is it not?

      I think it is called Debating.

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 16, 2016 at 8:21 PM

      Would you vote for indy if you knew the Scottish economy would collapse with the working class suffering the most? The rich never suffer do they!

      Delete
  12. I saw you debating whether the referendum polls were correct during the independence referendum on Twitter. I made a brief comment regarding the Quebec pollsters splitting "Don't Knows" 3:1 towards the No campaign during the second referendum, compared to our pollsters ignoring them (effectively using a 1:1 split).

    This 3:1 split was added, because undecided voters are generally more in favour the status quo. Using the last opinion polls for each pollster (excluding the TNS one, as it was about two weeks old), the 3:1 split makes a huge difference:

    Date - Pollster - Standard - Yes % w/o DKs - Yes% with 3:1 DK to No
    17 Sep - Ipsos Mori - Yes 45%, No 50% - 47.4% - 46.3%
    17 Sep - Survation - Yes 43%, No 48% - 47.3% - 45.3%
    17 Sep - YouGov - Yes 45%, No 49% - 47.9% - 46.5%
    17 Sep - Panelbase - Yes 45%, No 50% - 47.4% - 46.3%
    16 Sep - ICM - Yes 41%, No 45% - 47.7% - 44.5%
    15 Sep - Opinium - Yes 43%, No 47% - 47.8% - 45.5%
    15-17 Sep - AVERAGE - Yes 44%, No 48% - 47.5% - 45.7%

    So, instead of being at 47.5% - as the average of these six polls suggests - we were at 45.7% in the polls with a more accurate split of the Don't Knows, only 1% higher compared to the actual result.

    ReplyDelete





  13. I discovered I was HIV+ in 2013. I was devastated and ashamed. But today I have learn so much about HIV in my life. Since I started working in 2005 and had a medical aid from Dr Odia with the help of his herbal herbs, I checked my CD4 count every 6 months. To my GP’s surprise, it stayed between 532 and 528 all these years. I am not doing anything different and I don’t know what I’m doing right to stay with that count on CD4 this long. I don’t disclose my status at a go but I insist on protection. Though the partner who accepted my + status dumped me for unknown reason, I still stay positive with life. I don’t see death sentence with HIV, but I see life to be lived to the fullest. People die everyday in different ways, I will die but I know and positive that it will not be by HIV as I look after myself and the people around me. I want to go open with my status especially my family, but I’m scared. I’m still gathering strength, one day I will. Come what may, I will still have my life to live and enjoy.
    My mother wont accept his lobola, the rest of the family just wont speak to me, even about my future plans. It’s been tough but i have this firm belief that things will be OK. The worst part is that I come from an “educated” family and I thought that they would understand, I'm embarrassed by how they’ve become, it’s a shame. I know they feel they are protecting me, but they’ve also lost my trust somehow.While they see disgust in me, I see someone who’s protected me throughout my pain, i want you out there to know that it never a shame to be infected with HIV positive but the shame is when you know and didn't do a thing about it. Dr Odia is really a great make and bless with roots and herbs, I want to advice everyone with HIV to contact him Via ( drodiaherbalisthelpcare@hotmail.com ) for the cure.
    I really hope your efforts to curb the spread of this virus will penetrate through these young minds,so that they make better and wise choices for themselves. For those who are already infected, they could learn a thing or two from you! Contact him: ( drodiaherbalisthelpcare@hotmail.com )

    ReplyDelete
  14. Regards anyone living and working in Scotland being allowed to vote in indi 2. Yes all for this. However our largest ethnic minority 11% is English. They voted 80% no. Polish people in Scotland were 50% no but only make about 1% of the population.

    So we Have an English-british population in Scotland doing all they can to stop independence. Why is that and how is it fair when the majority of Scots and all other minorities would have produced a yes vote. I think that's the point that's being made. Why are the English so determined to hold Scotland back but other nationalities accept Scotland as a nation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to be clear, you're saying that because our largest ethnic minority voted No, we should consider banning ethnic minorities from voting?

      Delete
    2. Because while you might lump them together as 'The English', they didn't have a big secret meeting to organise a bloc vote so as to thwart the evil Scots.

      People who live here, and would live here afterwards, voted. Some voted for love of Scotland. Others for love of Britain. Others for no flag at all, but just for economics, or a desire to see a left-wing government. All valid choices, none of which are made less so by place of birth.

      It's a heck of a better system than inspecting birth certificates and disallowing someone who has spent their entire adult life here because their parents happened to be somewhere else when the baby dropped.

      Delete
  15. It's up to us to convince these people that it's in their best interests to vote YES. Telling them that we don't like their decision because they are English is hardly the way to win them over eh? I'm also pretty sure that talking of such a move would also alienate many native Scots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those English folk are perfectly entitled to their overwhelming majority-view that Scotland should stay within the Union.

      That is not in dispute.

      I also think, given their demographics, that changing that view simply will not happen, no matter how hard we try.
      They are pretty much wedded to the Union with England and will not shift from that view.
      That is their right.

      My question is simply this - when there is another IndyRef and if the majority view of the indigenous Scots is, once again, to Leave the Union - do you think it would be acceptable to that majority, for the English vote to, once again swing the result to Remain?

      Personally - and given the potentially crucial effect of a second Referendum vote on this Country's future - I have my doubts.

      Delete
    2. There are no indigenous Scots. If there ever were, they've long since been bred out of existence.

      What you are effectively saying is that the opinion of a 16 year old born in this country is of more value than that of a sixty year old born in England but who has lived, worked and paid taxes here for forty years. The aforementioned 16 year old could be his grandchild. How do you think the kid will feel about grandpa being disenfranchised?

      What you're proposing is racism, plain and simple. GWC's "natsi" jibe is right on the money as far as you are concerned.

      Delete
    3. You are a bit of a twat, Aldo.

      Firstly, I asked a question - I did not propose anything.

      If you read my latest natter with another poster, this afternoon, you will also read my own opinion.

      But, seeing as you obviously equate disenfranchisement with being a Racist.......perhaps you could take up that small matter with your Tory Master in Westminster, who has disenfranchised around 3 Million EU citizens, presently living in, working in and paying their taxes in Britain and banned them from voting in the pending EU Referendum.

      I am sure all those Non-Brits - some of whom will also have been resident in the UK for forty years and will have grand kids here - will be delighted that you consider their treatment at the hands of Cameron, Osborne et al, as Racist.

      Delete
    4. I think in the end it comes down to citizenship. If you are a naturalised British citizen, you can vote in the EU referendum. If not, you can't.

      There is no such thing as Scottish citizenship - the country hasn't existed since 1707 - but, if there were such a thing - many of the half a million people you are now complaining about would have it.

      I find it really ironic being called a twat by somebody who thinks there is a pure line of Scots DNA surviving in this country and that referenda voting rights should be limited to those who possess it.

      And here are the finał results of the 2030 referendum:

      No - zero
      Yes - zero
      Spoiled ballots - zero
      Total votes cast - zero

      I hereby call the referendum as a draw. Mr Salmond, you have the casting vote.............Mr Salmond?? Oh God, he's soiled himself again!

      Delete
  16. I have no doubts. Excluding them would be a mistake. You could equally well say that because the over-65s voted NO, they should be excluded too. It's simply discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Good for you.

    I doubt whether your "no doubts" will be shared by that majority I referred to.

    Time will tell........ no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My name is ALEX JENNY, and i want to thank Dr. Osagie for the herbal remedy he gave to me, i was suffering from HIV/ADS for so many years, but to God be the glory that i am healed with the herbal medicine that Dr. Osagie gave to me when i contacted him. i want to use this medium to tell everyone that the solution to our sickness has come, so i will like you to contact this great healer on his email address:(drosagiesolutiontemple@gmail.com OR
    DROSAGIESOULTIONTEMPLE@YAHOO.COM
    ) or whatsapp: +2347030465649, with him all your pains will be gone, i am really happy today that i am cured of HIV/ADS, i am now free from HIV/ADS VIRUS after the use of his herbal medicine. Once more i say a big thank you Dr. Osagie for healing me, i say may God continue to bless you abundantly and give you more power to keep helping those that want your help in their lives. contact him now on his email: (drosagiesolutiontemple@gmail.com OR
    DROSAGIESOULTIONTEMPLE@YAHOO.COM
    ) or His Whatsapp number: +2347030465649... Dr osagie has also cured my friend Vivan from HERPES DISEASE, so if you are infected with HERPES DISEASE kindly contact Dr osagie right now..

    ReplyDelete