Scottish Referendum - Part Deux
mr_goo Posts: 3,770
edited April 2017 in The cake stop
As the inevitable Sturgeon Scottish Nationalism Movement moves out of first gear. Should all of the United Kingdom's citizens be entitled to vote on the union?
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
They don't have a strong case for independence, but they would be more persuasive if they actually used their time in government to prove they can effect change. The just don't seem to do anything other than fret about the next referendum.
So you have to see everything that Sturgeon does through the "does this stoke The Grievance?" filter.
Maybe Brazilians are OK, provided they are female, stay in Rio and show a bit of flesh in Copacabana?
Scottish Independence Movement. But in answer to your question, I suspect most people in other parts of Britain would fall into one of 3 camps:
1. those who wish us well and hope we attain independence
2. those who can't wait to see the back of us
3. those who don't care either way
I'd be surprised if there were huge numbers of people in England (especially) who feel that "Britain" gains anything from including Scotland (or to put it another way, if Britain is really anything other than England).
you need two lists. One for people we don't like and another for people we don't like in our country. You may want to cross tab this with religion and skin tone.
What you're saying is that we just don't have the focus that the Scots have. Too easily distracted.
According to Nicola Sturgeon, the UK as a whole voted to leave the EU but Scotland as a whole voted to remain - so Scotland should be allowed to break off from the UK to remain in the EU.
So, applying the same logic to a Scottish Independance referendum - even if Scotland as a whole votes to leave the UK, any consituency that votes to remain should be allowed to break off from Scotland to remain in the UK.
So if the borders and Edinburgh voted to remain, she would give them up and form a smaller, independant Scotland without them?
I bet not - but that is the rule she is preaching...!
What about the ones we don't like in our country except for when we need a cheap extension built or some cheap labour
Shetland Islands would be a good example although it is questionable whether the residents are keen on staying in the UK anyway.
Personally I don't want Scotland to leave the union unless they want to. I believe it should be a significant margin too unlike the EU referendum.
One point i would make, any significant referendum should have a margin of error too cover all who are eligible to vote but didn't. So if only 49% voted then it isn't able to be successful. If 51% of eligible voters voted and 1% of eligible voters voted to remain then that isn't enough to change the status quo. Just my opinion.
For something as big as this, there should probably be a winning post of (say) 60%, rather than just gaining a majority. I voted Yes in the last Scottish independence referendum and will do so again, and so I'd be overjoyed if we got 51% but at the same time, having been on the losing side of the EU referendum, it could in no way be called decisive and I wouldn't be claiming it as "the will of the people".
I've been making this point for a while but I think the size distribution is way off what you suggest. If the leave vote increased enough to give it a majority, but it was otherwise as per last time, then effectively I think it would be Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee going their own way and the rest of Scotland remaining in the Union. In terms of numbers, clearly there would be a majority in favour of Scottish independence but in terms of land area, it would be a miniscule minority; hardly really 'Scotland' at all. But, in terms of consistency, Nicola would have to support a split from the rest of Scotland or be shown to be a hypocrite. But of course, you can just alternative truth your way out of that sort of hole these days.
oi! i'm english and don't dislike, let alone hate, anyone on basis of nationality
This is an utterly catastrophic direction of travel. Scotland's budget deficit it on a par with Greece (>9% last time I looked). Even if it walks away from its share of the UK national debt, it will have have it back in 10 years. Unless it hikes taxes at the same time as slashing services, all whilst spending loads on putting the organs of government it needs into place, facing down a stalled economy and an exodus of jobs, so as to get somewhat close to the EU requirements for entry, it will remain an insignificant peripheral country outside of both the UK and the EU.
The disastrous effects of leaving both the UK and the EU will postpone any potential up-side to well beyond it mattering to anyone who votes now. And, just like Brexit, those who will suffer most are those who will be most supportive, sucked in by lies.
This misguided, hostile, aggressive and frankly racist independence movement will end in tears.
I only wish I could move away now.
Yeah, but Nicola's got a bus on order and it will say otherwise on the side so that's that.
S'what Brexiters say.
Trouble is that this would be even worse. What you suggest would mean that if 59% vote to leave, the 'democratic' course of action would be to go with the option that even less people voter for (only 41% in that case) because the margin wasnt big enough. There is no logic in that and it simply couldnt be done that way.
I'm pretty sure that's the way referendums work in many countries...
Yes, you can. The logic is that you need a high degree of agreement to change the status quo. 50% is only fine if you are voting between two things that represent change (eg changing the colour of the background from blue to green or blue to orange). Otherwise you get what happened - a decision that has enormous consequences achieved by lies and misinformation. The expectation should be that you need to make a bloody good case for such a revolutionary change if you are going to delegate it to the un-expert populace who don't understand a fraction of what it is all about.
Hinaultsetc is right - I think referenda are usually not 50:50.
The following table sets out threshold requirements for referendums held in established Western democracies:
Majority Provisions in established Western Democracies57
Geographical requirement: majority of votes and majority of states
No provisions for referendums
Registered voter requirement: 30% of voters, 40% of voters on constitutional changes
No provisions for referendums
Turnout requirement: 50% of the registered voters
Geographical requirement: simple majority and majority of cantons 56 For total revision, and for partial revision covering certain basic matters. Other matters can be put to referendums if demanded by one-tenth of the members of either house
Simple majority (40% of registered voters in 1979)
No provisions for nationwide referendums
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 7726,d.cGw
And the other point is that there is no such thing as status quo in these cases. In the case of Brexit, the EU is constantly changing and likely to change in the future, in the case of IndyRef, the consitution of the UK is due to change massively. So there is no status quo to vote for really - you are voting for option a) or option b) and this can only be done based on majority.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
It's a referendum sturgeon can't afford to lose and can't afford to win.
Wish I could take credit.
Pretty sweeping generalisation of "the English" that mate. Hopefully you're being ironic? +1 to the Brazilian females though
More powers are being divest to the Scottish Parliament to raise taxes but responsibilities are also attached to balance their budget.
Personally I'm for Scottish independence as I see its an inevitable outcome from all the idiotic rhetoric from the nutjibs who think the film Bravehaert is historical fact.
If independence happens do you think the English will have to bail Scotland out again in another Act of the Union? Could be a source of cheap labour for the Mike Ashley's using zero hour contracts.....