Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Slaav]

Dont you hate people who sit watching an argument/discussion and then jump in with their opinion: Here goes.....

I am not (still) 100% clear whether the two main characters above are actually listening to one another?

Making a huge assumption here, doesn't everyone appreciate that it was a simple referendum with a simple binary choice. Whoever had the majority of 1 or 1000 wins? I think everyone appreciates that don't they?

The main crux of the argument above seems to be one side using that slightly misleading graphic as clear evidence that it was a roll over and massive win for 'NO'? The other side not actually listening to the point being made and factually pointing out that it was irrelevant to the result (which I am assuming we all know!)

To this end, working on the basis that the country has for a very very long time worked on constituencies and wards etc, leading to MPs or similar and that in turn decides the make up of PArliament and whether there is a majority or minority government (or God forbid, a damn coalition ) - i think it is an interesting graphic!

I do also think that the way the BBC covered it with the councils/wards being shown as simple identical boxes and then weighted (size wise) to show population was quite interesting. Further to this point, I found that style of program and reporting interesting as the make up of the wards would quite possibly lead to an obvious 'YES' or 'NO'. Interestingly, the predictions were often wrong or inaccurate.

Possibly that graphic should be used along with the EXACT SAME data in several different ways? If a ward was 50/50, then colour that ward 50/50 red and green/blue for instance. If that methodology was used, then one could sit back and decide whether it was slightly redder () or slightly greener (), or indeed, very much more red (or green.)

Would this not give a clear 'feel' for how one sided the vote was (or not)?

Anybody know of similar or got the time and skills do do so?


As an aside, it is such a shame that (as too often) these sort of threads go down the personal insults and pedantry route. I have been quite entertained by most of the points made and threads on this subject and it would be a shame if this degenerated the way of parts of the Israel thread for example.

[Neonblau]

Oakey said:

ash73 said:

North Sea oil and gas rights here. In the 1970's the UK treasury conveniently diverted all income into a separate revenue stream called the UK Continental Shelf, a total of about £300B over the last 40 years. According to the standard median line demarcation Scotland would be entitled to 90% of this revenue.

Regarding Scotland's net contribution, have a look at this in particular table A-9 on page 55.

UK: revenue 551.4B, expenditure 689.6B, balance -138.2B (-25%)
Scotland: revenue 52.0B (inc NSO&G), expenditure 63.1B, balance -11.1B (-21%)

Both operate with a deficit, but Scotland provides 9.4% of total UK revenues while only receiving 9.2% of UK public spending (2010/11). If you exclude oil & gas the net contribution is the other way. Its finances look broadly in line with the rest of the UK, obviously depending on future oil revenues.

Not this st again

Or to put it in today's terms the UK gets 100% of the UK's oil revenue. Everything else is bks.

[anonymous-user]

xjsdriver said:

HenryJM said:

xjsdriver said:

GetCarter said:

'cept loads of SNP voters voted 'no' (see demographic in post earlier)

This referendum was never about one's personal political persuasion - sadly, most elder people were swayed by fears over their pensions. The 45% represent the future of Scotland. The elderly were also probably swayed by nostalgic memories of an empire past, when Britain did indeed rule the waves. The days of empire are long past and the attitudes of those who hold these outdated ideals, will dwindle over the coming years. It's no longer a question of if Scotland will become independent - but when....

Well last time this was voted on the result was 51.6% yes and 48.4% no, independence only didn't happen because the ruling was for 50% of the electorate and not 50% of those who voted.

So being a shade over 55% to remain and under 45% to leave is pretty conclusive that independencce is not what scotland wants, certainly by previous history.

What the demographic information shows is that it's the over 65s who don't want change. The majority of younger people do want independence and attitudes to becoming independent will change over the next 20 to 25 years as the attitudes of those over 65 dwindle, as they do....

There are two points there. First, the younger generation may find their views develop as they become older. Secondly, the oil won't last forever; as Scotland was unable to formulate a coherent economic plan *with* oil income the chances of it being able to do so in the future without oil income are vanishing small.

Of course, there's always the next massive oilfield just around the corner, which might produce a gazillion barrels a day, but Mr Micawber's had his turn at arguing for independence, and it didn't work.

[London424]

Oakey said:

Not this st again

It's fking painful isn't it?!

[McWigglebum4th]

Look i have seen the truth i have seen the messages on Facebook



I am a stupid ignorant unionist tory traitor english loving scumbag who must accept the simple truth that the majority of scotland voted for independence and i should accept it


i am not one of the glorious 45% i am one of the tiny minority that is the 55%


I shall accept this and move out of scotland


As i am deeply afraid of the future


mainly because YES voters are too fking thick to realise 55 is a bigger number then 45 and they want to run a country

[GetCarter]

[redacted]

[hidetheelephants]

Neonblau said:

xjsdriver said:

This referendum was never about one's personal political persuasion - sadly, most elder people were swayed by fears over their pensions. The 45% represent the future of Scotland. The elderly were also probably swayed by nostalgic memories of an empire past, when Britain did indeed rule the waves. The days of empire are long past and the attitudes of those who hold these outdated ideals, will dwindle over the coming years. It's no longer a question of if Scotland will become independent - but when....

Extremely unlikely to happen.

The Nats blew their one shot at it. Never again will the economic conditions be as favourable. North Sea oil will be all but gone, the demand for oil will probably be greatly reduced and the rest of the world will have caught up or overtaken us in solar/wind/alternative energy production (look at how many turbines the Chinese are currently building). Fracking in the US has already turned the market on its head, the US is oil independent and is now exporting diesel and some crude oil - unthinkable even 5 years ago. Geo-politics in the ME and Ukraine will also ensure that fracking in the UK will happen. All this will ensure a suppressed oil price and with North Sea extraction costs at $80 a barrel extraction will slow.

More importantly Scotland's population will have a massive age imbalance generating huge pension and healthcare costs that will be a drag on revenues and may indeed prove too big a burden without major reform.

Add all that to the inevitable economic and security uncertainties and the only ones calling for independence will be the "blood and soil" nationalists. The opposite is likley to be the case.

Fracking is not magically going to lower the oil price; there are costs involved and the volumes of produced oil and gas will not increase quickly enough to make much if any difference to the world price. The benefits of it will mostly be in the revenue to the exchequer and jobs created in the UK, and the less tangible benefit of greater energy security.

[paulrockliffe]

Has Gordon Brown gone rogue? I'm struggling to understand what authority he's going to use to force further devolution that is clearly opposed by the majority of UK voters.

The only way this can be forced through is if it is in terms that work for the English and/or stuffs the Labour party.

Regardless, I get the impression none of this has been run passed the people that hold power, all seems quite bizarre.

[Olivera]

ash73 said:

Both operate with a deficit, but Scotland provides 9.4% of total UK revenues while only receiving 9.2% of UK public spending (2010/11).

Can we please use more up to date figures, not those from a few years ago which the SNP trot out. The IFS have reported on numerous occasions that in 2012/13 (latest figures available), the additional tax take from north sea oil does not quite make up for the addtional public spending:

"Between 2008–09 and 2011–12,
offshore revenues – taxes on oil and gas – more than made up for this gap. But
falling production, and increases in tax-deductible investment and operating costs,
mean that these revenues fell substantially in 2012–13 and were no longer
sufficient to fill the gap between onshore taxes and spending fully. Scotland
therefore went from having a smaller budget deficit than the UK in 2011–12, to a
larger one in 2012–13. North Sea revenues declined further in 2013–14, making
it likely that Scotland’s relative fiscal position has continued to deteriorate. "

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/bn1...

[Oakey]

Has ash73 figured out what 9.2% of 689.6B is yet or does he need it pointing out to him?

[r11co]

Slaav said:

To this end, working on the basis that the country has for a very very long time worked on constituencies and wards etc, leading to MPs or similar and that in turn decides the make up of PArliament and whether there is a majority or minority government (or God forbid, a damn coalition ) - i think it is an interesting graphic!

I agree. Going forward it is interesting as a statistical analysis for possible future elections run on different systems. It is however pretty meaningless for what was actually being tested at the time, and it is worrying that people are applying their own wholly false interpretation, for example...

GetCarter said:

Red bits hold the majority of the Scottish human population... who all voted no

It doesn't even need explaining why the above is false (I suspect the person who wrote it intended something different to what it actually says), but this ignorant polarising of opinion was heavily criticised during the referendum campaigning. The vote has passed, but the lessons still need to be learned it seems.

PS. I'll repeat for the people who are presumptuous, and dismissive of proper debate - I supported and voted no!

Edited by r11co on Saturday 20th September 17:42

[fluffnik]

Slaav said:

Making a huge assumption here, doesn't everyone appreciate that it was a simple referendum with a simple binary choice. Whoever had the majority of 1 or 1000 wins?

That's the idea, except "Better Together" was mostly campaigning for an option not on the ballot.

[r11co]

fluffnik said:

That's the idea, except "Better Together" was mostly campaigning for an option not on the ballot.

I think that accusation could be applied to both sides...

[Troubleatmill]

Slaav said:

Possibly that graphic should be used along with the EXACT SAME data in several different ways? If a ward was 50/50, then colour that ward 50/50 red and green/blue for instance. If that methodology was used, then one could sit back and decide whether it was slightly redder () or slightly greener (), or indeed, very much more red (or green.)

Would this not give a clear 'feel' for how one sided the vote was (or not)?

Anybody know of similar or got the time and skills do do so?

The guys at the BBC did.... I've posted this link up previously.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

Edited by Troubleatmill on Saturday 20th September 18:05

[fluffnik]

r11co said:

fluffnik said:

That's the idea, except "Better Together" was mostly campaigning for an option not on the ballot.

I think that accusation could be applied to both sides...

There's a difference between advertising potential advantages of an option and swearing blind that your option, the status quo ante in No's case, is actually something quite different...

[plasticpig]

ash73 said:

North Sea oil and gas rights here. In the 1970's the UK treasury conveniently diverted all income into a separate revenue stream called the UK Continental Shelf, a total of about £300B over the last 40 years. According to the standard median line demarcation Scotland would be entitled to 90% of this revenue.

Regarding Scotland's net contribution, have a look at this in particular table A-9 on page 55.

UK: revenue 551.4B, expenditure 689.6B, balance -138.2B (-25%)
Scotland: revenue 52.0B (inc NSO&G), expenditure 63.1B, balance -11.1B (-21%)

Both operate with a deficit, but Scotland provides 9.4% of total UK revenues while only receiving 9.2% of UK public spending (2010/11). If you exclude oil & gas the net contribution is the other way. Its finances look broadly in line with the rest of the UK, obviously depending on future oil revenues.

That's one years figures. Do you make decisions based on one years figures? If you showed me public spending versus revenues since the act of union and that Scotland were always worse off then you might be onto something. But showing one year in isolation is meaningless.

[Moonhawk]

ash73 said:

North Sea oil and gas rights here. In the 1970's the UK treasury conveniently diverted all income into a separate revenue stream called the UK Continental Shelf, a total of about £300B over the last 40 years. According to the standard median line demarcation Scotland would be entitled to 90% of this revenue.

Regarding Scotland's net contribution, have a look at this in particular table A-9 on page 55.

UK: revenue 551.4B, expenditure 689.6B, balance -138.2B (-25%)
Scotland: revenue 52.0B (inc NSO&G), expenditure 63.1B, balance -11.1B (-21%)

Both operate with a deficit, but Scotland provides 9.4% of total UK revenues while only receiving 9.2% of UK public spending (2010/11). If you exclude oil & gas the net contribution is the other way. Its finances look broadly in line with the rest of the UK, obviously depending on future oil revenues.

OK - even if we accept this argument - what about the 250+ years before oil was commercially exploited?

Surely if Scotland has taken from the pot during that time - the fact that oil reserves are currently paying back in is only fair no?

Has Scotland been a net contributor over the entire history of the union - if not - then trying to f#ck off with the oil revenues now when the Uk is in a bit of bother is rather churlish wouldn't you say?

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 20th September 18:14

[r11co]

fluffnik said:

There's a difference between advertising potential advantages of an option and swearing blind that your option, the status quo ante in No's case, is actually something quite different...

I don't actually recall anyone in Better Together pitching that. Seems that a 'potential advantage' becomes an 'option' depending on which side you were on!

[anonymous-user]

r11co said:

I think that accusation could be applied to both sides...

But their gamble failed and resulted in labour rule and influence ended forever! Nice work

[///ajd]

Thinking out loud here, but isn't it time that Scots showed some real commitment to the union?

55% have said lets stay, but clearly alot are still raking through the coals and muttering about more powers.

It feels more like there should be a concerted effort now to make the union work and be a rather more enthusiastic and less moaning partner.

The T26 contract worth £10Bn+ and securing Clyde shipbuilding for a generation is always something I felt was the right thing for the UK to be doing, but I'm now left wondering if the UK shouldn't be expecting at least some recognition that such a contract is a tremendously positive result of the union.

I can't help feeling it won't be recognised at all and I must confess that this is not really how the union should be. It is a bit broken, bit fixing it is not about new powers but about Scotland not taking all the positive things so much for granted all the bloody time.

Am I alone in thinking like this?