to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine

Quite. Hence my saying that people were very welcome to ignore every bit of text written by Wings but to go straight to the citations to the sources!

And, ach, I was going to rise to the bait on the Wikipedia point, but I can't be bothered.

That's nice you've got something to look forward to Chelsy. happy for you

Just how can supporters of Wings get their target audience so wrong?

Who do you think their target audience are?

It Ms hardly a complete repository of the full range of viewpoints from across the spectrum. You would do better simply using google if you were lacking information

Of course not - it in no way complains to be impartial. It is a collection of facts supporting a Yes vote.

Complains? claims obviously

Quite. Hence my saying that people were very welcome to ignore every bit of text written by Wings but to go straight to the citations to the sources!

But don't you see that those citations are just as biased as their text?

They are careful only to link to sources that support their point of view. Most of them are disputed in other places, that they naturally don't tell you about. :(

You would do better simply using google

I was responding to an undecided voter who said they were having difficulty finding facts - presumably they have already tried Google. I suggested one source, with full disclosure of its bias and a suggestion that they could avoid the biased content by going straight to the sources. I didn't suggest it was a complete directory of information but it's a start. Obviously others can suggest different resources with different biases and problems if they want!

I don't think its right to represent Wings or the WBB as something they are not. These are not independent, well researched, neutral, unbiased, reliable resources.

They are the heavily politicised and biased outpourings of an internet blogger, who has no qualifications or experience in what he is trying to discuss, and his supporters.

They are careful only to link to sources that support their point of view. Most of them are disputed in other places, that they naturally don't tell you about

Well of course I can't understand why people are surprised/complain about this. Its kind of sad that no one in the No campaign was able to produce this sort of resource.

Deeder did you mean your Las comment to come across as creepy as that?

Wow another Indy thread, well done to you all!!!!!!!

On reading them (I have no vote) I've gone from Aye to No way and back and forth so may times!!!!

I don't think its right to represent Wings or the WBB as something they are not. These are not independent, well researched, neutral, unbiased, reliable resources.

I don't think anyone has ever said Wings claims to be independent or neutral or unbiased The references are all there so if the reader iOS so inclined they can check original sources and form a view on well-researched and reliable. Of course Yessers on these threads recommend it - it has most of the Yes arguments in one place, properly referenced. Much harder to find sources individually by googling.

They are the heavily politicised and biased outpourings of an internet blogger, who has no qualifications or experience in what he is trying to discuss, and his supporters.

Of course they are highly politicised and biased it is written to persuade people to vote Yes. I'm not sure his qualifications or experience are relevant? And it wasn't written by his supporters just him.

Sallyingforth

Well, yes, there's a biased choice of sources - it's then up to the person who follows the links to decide upon the reliability of individual reports linked by Wings. I was mainly thinking of it as a useful way to be directed into, say, governmental reports (both HM and Scottish), which are often quite difficult to find through a straightforward Google.

For balance, here is the gov.uk "10 myths. 10 facts" which has a similar, but opposite, favouring of sources and citations: www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-the-uk-10-myths-10-facts

However, as a neutral alternative!

www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/papers/scotlands-decision-16-questions-think-about-referendum-18-september

An e-book put together by undecided voters with analyses from impartial experts on a number of key questions.

I'm not sure you'll get a complete hand book of impartial facts as

1- people motivated to make things like that are usually motivated by strong beliefs, not strong ambivalence.

2- it's the future. There are many facts!

I think you're better off reading the literature that you can find and double checking all the figures and opinions in it. If you find the opposite fact somewhere else, I think you could safely assume that there's no ultimate truth because it's the future, but just different ways to report information to support opposite opinions .

But keep reading and checking. Don't just make up your mind to vote yes or no like the eatyourcereal woman because you can't be bothered thinking about it or researching it. You owe it to everyone else to think it all through.

I don't want a handbook of any facts Deedeee.

Aren't many. Not are many

Chelsy, it was just nice to hear you looking forward to something. Amongst all your worry, despair and anger.

I don't want a handbook of any facts Deedeee.

And that's fine. The WBB is not aimed at people like you. As a No-er maybe you could recommend some good sources for undecideds as well as critiquing the sources of information the Yessers put forward?

I wasn't talking to you that time Chelsy. But thanks for clarifying that for us. Everyone remember that .Chelsy doesn't need a handbook.

Chelsy

You may not, but we were responding to siiiiiiiiigh who stated:

(I'm still wobbling on the fence and getting increasingly hacked off at how difficult it is to find FACTS on which to base my vote)

This is something that a lot of undecided voters are saying, so there's clearly a need. If you don't fall into the category of people who don't know what to vote and are having difficulties with the lack of clear information, the links aren't for you.

Anyway, for undecided voters, a run-down!

1. A Yes-biased source with links to the sources of its claims (obviously chosen to intentionally support said claims and bias).
2. A No-biased source with links to the sources of its claims (obviously chosen to intentionally support said claims and bias.
3. A neutral source with discussions from impartial experts on some of the key issues surrounding a decision.

"What I meant was in direct response to comments that we could just call it a bursary and that would get around it as long as we said the fees were the same. I also wasn't talking about overall funding packages."

But this is perfectly possible. If Scottish Universities charged all students 9K, but decided to make a 9K bursary, and other maintenance grants, available to Scottish students, but not others, then there would be no problems with this in the context of EU law, since there is different provision for bursaries and grants for students from different countries within the EU already. Currently, EU students are not eligible for bursaries and grants which Scottish students are eligible for. There's no change here.

I'm ashamed that this is happening in my country

mob mentality

I wouldn't presume to direct anyone to a particular resource. I don't want to influence anyone's opinion either. Its entirely their business how they vote.

If people are clever enough, they will have no difficulty in finding out the information they want, or they will have it already. If not, then they will make a possibly uninformed or instinctive decision, buy again, that's their prerogative. It would feel like undue influence to me if I tried to tell someone in Tha position what to think.

At work, I would be a laughing stock and likely professionally negligent if I used Wings as a source!

They less of an issue with charging hone students different fees than from non him students. Although countries like The Netherlands charge the same fees for all EU students. The problem is in singling out English students only for different fees. That is not acceptable under EU law and would constitute unfair state aid and trangress racial equality rules.

Well, funnily enough there's a lot of expert opinions which disagree with you. And we don't do that now despite the fact that Scottish student fees are currently paid by a bursary. We still have to give eu students free tuition

it's then up to the person who follows the links to decide upon the reliability of individual reports linked by Wings.

If that's the case, they might just as well make an individual search for information anyway.

Whether people are well informed or not, it looks as if the tide is moving towards a Yes vote, and if that's what the majority want I'm quite relaxed about it. You have a free choice and I just hope it works out for you.

If people are clever enough, they will have no difficulty in finding out the information they want, or they will have it already.

You are assuming everyone has the same access to the internet as you. An inability to access the information/ known where to start does not make someone not "clever"!

If not, then they will make a possibly uninformed or instinctive decision, buy again, that's their prerogative. It would feel like undue influence to me if I tried to tell someone in Tha position what to think.

That is a difference between you and me. Rather than writing off the uninformed and undecided I would point them to easily accessible sources of information (with a yes bias, as I think that is correct). You will sneer and call them not clever and ill informed without actually offering any assistance.

At work, I would be a laughing stock and likely professionally negligent if I used Wings as a source!

That is entirely irrelevant.