Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
lamboman100 said:
stuart-b said:
Petrus1983 said:
Is anyone else just really pleased/proud to be part of a country that allows such freedom of speech and democracy? With all the troubles around the world, seeing a decisive decision being handled purely democratically is just re-assuring overall.
Yes! I was just about to write the same thing.Only 10% of the UK voted.
A huge 90% of the United Kingdom (UK) was denied a vote in disuniting the kingdom (DK).
andy_s said:
WeirdNeville said:
How can Darling speak with so little passion?
It's like he doesn't give a f
k.
Worse than Salmonds Speech, why he was ever put at the head of the campaign I don't know. Someone with some drive should have pushed this to 70/30 IMO.
A very poor No campaign, I believe the vote carried in spite of their efforts rather than because of them.It's like he doesn't give a f
k.Worse than Salmonds Speech, why he was ever put at the head of the campaign I don't know. Someone with some drive should have pushed this to 70/30 IMO.
Alex Salmond, to give him credit, realised from the start that this was not a General Election. In elections, politicians will make promises but they also know that they will be held to account on those promises - failure to deliver means that they will not be re-elected. This keeps their promises grounded in reality. This is how the Westminster politicians approached the debate - remain in the area of the possible and probable.
Salmond grasped that the rules for a referendum are very different. He only needed to win once and what happened thereafter was irrelevant. Independence would have been achieved with no going back. Therefore, he could (and did) make the most outrageous promises and take demonstrably erroneous positions. The failure to deliver on the promises would not matter: the worst that would happen is he could blame failure on Westminster.
This in turn framed the No debate. Faced with a tide of semi-plausible rubbish about how all the best bits would stay the same, the bad bits would get better, and the average bits would become outstanding, the No campaign were forced into disproving those statements (which was relatively easy). It made the early campaigning inherently negative when the Yes campaign merely ignored the facts and ploughed on with a relentlessly positive message about everything that you don't like will magically disappear and you will be wealthier. It didn't matter that the Yes messages were self-contradictory - they just had to appeal to the widest number of people (Want a Monarchy? You've got it. Want a Republic? It'll only happen with Independence )
You know what has to be celebrated here...absolutely nothing.
Just to put things in perspective - the No's have won by just over 4 Wembley stadium fulls. That's not alot.
This means that in all probability, HAD Salmond been able to effectively answer the Currency question and given a guarantee on pensions and savings accounts -
Scotland would have told us to fk right off.
As it stands, Scotland, with it's already powerful parliament and up and coming enhanced powers, is effectivly ALREADY an independant state under the badge of a union.
This is wrong. We are supposed to be ONE nation. Westminster (Laboour, Tory and LibDem) have sold the last of the family silver with regards to tghe UK being described as United.
Full Scottish independance is just a matter of time.
Just to put things in perspective - the No's have won by just over 4 Wembley stadium fulls. That's not alot.
This means that in all probability, HAD Salmond been able to effectively answer the Currency question and given a guarantee on pensions and savings accounts -
Scotland would have told us to f
k right off.As it stands, Scotland, with it's already powerful parliament and up and coming enhanced powers, is effectivly ALREADY an independant state under the badge of a union.
This is wrong. We are supposed to be ONE nation. Westminster (Laboour, Tory and LibDem) have sold the last of the family silver with regards to tghe UK being described as United.
Full Scottish independance is just a matter of time.
Well the people have spoken and I for one am glad the Union is still together and that odious little man did not get his way, although you wouldn't know that by listening to his speech.
As a dyed in the wool Englishman I can only agree on the animosity this has stirred within my close friends and I, let alone I imagine within Scottish families, friends and communities.
Salmond has certainly left his stain.....
Listening to CMD's speech an acknowledgment of more powers for all in the union, and a huge pointer of more powers for the English.
We'll wait and see what this actually means but one thing that has come out of this whole divisive episode should benefit us all.
As a dyed in the wool Englishman I can only agree on the animosity this has stirred within my close friends and I, let alone I imagine within Scottish families, friends and communities.
Salmond has certainly left his stain.....
Listening to CMD's speech an acknowledgment of more powers for all in the union, and a huge pointer of more powers for the English.
We'll wait and see what this actually means but one thing that has come out of this whole divisive episode should benefit us all.
RichB said:
So, yesterday Salmond said this was a "Once in a lifetime opportunity," now he's saying "Scotland has decided, at this stage, not to become independent." Make your mind up man!
3 key words there, and intersting that Cameron in line 3 of his reasonable speech this am sought to slam down the prospect of a re-run ("a once in a generation opportunity, or as Salmond said, once in a lifetime").Also good to hear the West Lothian question specifically referred to.
But we shall see who has the balls to do so much this close to the end of their term.
So what did burger vote in the end?
Is Fluffy balls emigrating
Is VincterPrick going to start a new movement
Does Fluffy get a refund?
Does XJS and PVC driver get to chill out.
Do all Pro Yes on this thread now accept the settled will of the Scottish people and stop banging in about splitting away? You will never again be offered the choice
/in you're lifetime.
So who's for a Fully fedral UK ? I am. But I do want the wealthier parts of the union supporting the weaker parts and happy for that to continue.
Is Fluffy balls emigrating
Is VincterPrick going to start a new movement
Does Fluffy get a refund?
Does XJS and PVC driver get to chill out.
Do all Pro Yes on this thread now accept the settled will of the Scottish people and stop banging in about splitting away? You will never again be offered the choice
/in you're lifetime. So who's for a Fully fedral UK ? I am. But I do want the wealthier parts of the union supporting the weaker parts and happy for that to continue.
Moonhawk said:
RichB said:
So, yesterday Salmond said this was a "Once in a lifetime opportunity," now he's saying "Scotland has decided, at this stage, not to become independent." Make your mind up man!
Anyone notice his impudent smirk whilst he said that.........
OpulentBob said:
I don't see it like that. OK there was some heckling and gobbing off on both sides, but I think the Yes side was more vocal because it was the voice of frustration, and the voice of youth - who at the base level will always be louder than your typical middle aged conservative voter. To have a campaign over something as massive as independence, with 80-90 percent of people turning out, to have no trouble, no (real) fighting, OK a few eggs were being thrown and a couple of people jostled, but compared to independence issues around the world - in recent history and not very far at all from our shores - this has been a fantastic, well run, VERY well behaved campaign. We have all seen how emotional people on both sides have been - Wiggly and VP/XJS/PCV etc as an example - yet it's been inclusive, relatively balanced, and for the most part peaceful.
I'm glad to have experienced it, and I think it's a good example to the rest of the world.
Well said. It was a good tempered campaign. Sometimes, reading PH, you would get the impression Scotland was like Ukraine or Syria. It isn't. There's no doubt that a handful of people got carried away, but they're hardly representative (despite what the Daily Mail/Telegraph would have you believe). I've had a few debates with friends and neighbours and there was never an angry word spoken.I'm glad to have experienced it, and I think it's a good example to the rest of the world.
clonmult said:
lamboman100 said:
stuart-b said:
Petrus1983 said:
Is anyone else just really pleased/proud to be part of a country that allows such freedom of speech and democracy? With all the troubles around the world, seeing a decisive decision being handled purely democratically is just re-assuring overall.
Yes! I was just about to write the same thing.Only 10% of the UK voted.
A huge 90% of the United Kingdom (UK) was denied a vote in disuniting the kingdom (DK).
Maybe you'll get a chance in a few years time when we have the next one.
Edinburger said:
Hopefully significant change en route to Scotland via devo plus / devo max.
But why the fk should you get it? What makes Scotland so fking special? What is wrong with being run from the democratically accepted capital of Great Britain?You voted No!
Jocks - get over yourselves, FFS!
Hmm - interesting number crunching:
In 2011 - 902,915 people voted for the SNP. Turnout for that election was 50%.
If you divide the SNPs vote in that election by the turnout for that election - then multiply up by the turnout for the referendum - you get a similar number as the number of people who voted Yes.........
902,915 / 50 * 84.59 = 1,527,512 (vs 1,617,989 Yes voters in referendum).
If we assume that SNP supporters are also Yes supporters (a reasonable assumption IMO) - then it means that for all the Yes campaigns, erm.....campaigning - they only managed to convince around 90,000 additional people to vote Yes than would have done anyway.
In 2011 - 902,915 people voted for the SNP. Turnout for that election was 50%.
If you divide the SNPs vote in that election by the turnout for that election - then multiply up by the turnout for the referendum - you get a similar number as the number of people who voted Yes.........
902,915 / 50 * 84.59 = 1,527,512 (vs 1,617,989 Yes voters in referendum).
If we assume that SNP supporters are also Yes supporters (a reasonable assumption IMO) - then it means that for all the Yes campaigns, erm.....campaigning - they only managed to convince around 90,000 additional people to vote Yes than would have done anyway.
Derek Smith said:
The gap surprised me. Over 10% is significant and something of a relief.
Is it fk significant. 25% would be significant. 10% is very close.Don't think this has gone away, it hasn't. Salmond said in his speech - Scotland has voted to stay with the union - AT THIS STAGE!
Expect to go through the same s
t in about 15-20 years time.Cobnapint said:
Edinburger said:
Hopefully significant change en route to Scotland via devo plus / devo max.
But why the fk should you get it? What makes Scotland so fking special? What is wrong with being run from the democratically accepted capital of Great Britain?You voted No!
Jocks - get over yourselves, FFS!
Scotland are getting what they want because...err..that's what they want and have created a political movement around it, its a simple as that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff