The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
UK Elections & Politics

Scottish Independence Referendum

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#46New Post! Nov 07, 2014 @ 02:23:44
@shadowen Said

By the way...the majority of voters under the age of 23 voted "yes"...


Seems like it was close & will be getting closer in the future then?
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#47New Post! Nov 23, 2014 @ 00:41:47
@shadowen Said

over 1.6 million Scots voted YES for independence. The No vote won by less than 400,000 votes...and by coincidence over 400,000 english born residents now living in Scotland voted in the referendum. An estimated 93-98% of them voted NO...so the result was hardly resounding...and with just 2 weeks to go the YES vote was leading in some polls. But the scare campaign was well run, and the outrageous media biased achieved it's aim...for now.



@shinobinoz Said

Seems like it was close & will be getting closer in the future then?





We can all play the statistics game.

This referendum, just like elections in the UK, was decided by the "First Past The Post" system. We don't have proportional representation (something that I'm in favour of), therefore the number of votes cast is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the number of seats, or in this case, regions won. Scotland was divided (electorally) into 32 regions. The Yes vote won 4 regions and the No vote won 28 regions.

If you call 28 - 4 a close run thing that's up to you. I call it a thrashing.

Alternatively, you could check out the map below. The yellow bit is the part of Scotland that voted no.

How close was that..?

Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#48New Post! Nov 23, 2014 @ 00:42:29
Deleted. My error
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#49New Post! Nov 23, 2014 @ 15:50:49
@Jennifer1984 Said

We can all play the statistics game.

This referendum, just like elections in the UK, was decided by the "First Past The Post" system. We don't have proportional representation (something that I'm in favour of), therefore the number of votes cast is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the number of seats, or in this case, regions won. Scotland was divided (electorally) into 32 regions. The Yes vote won 4 regions and the No vote won 28 regions.

If you call 28 - 4 a close run thing that's up to you. I call it a thrashing.

Alternatively, you could check out the map below. The yellow bit is the part of Scotland that voted no.

How close was that..?



Yes, statistics being thus. If you see a map of the usa: Say 2004


You'd call that over whelming and a whooping, would you not. The vote? 50.7% to 48.3%

So be fair, I'm not from your side of the big pond so can you answer my question. Was it close & is getting closer?
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#50New Post! Nov 25, 2014 @ 11:10:37
The biggest city in Scotland voted YES...most young voters voted YES. The no vote were sufficiently scared a week or so before the election that they offered devo max when in the preceding years they had refused exactly this...
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#51New Post! Nov 25, 2014 @ 11:56:16
@shinobinoz Said

Yes, statistics being thus. If you see a map of the usa: Say 2004


You'd call that over whelming and a whooping, would you not. The vote? 50.7% to 48.3%

So be fair, I'm not from your side of the big pond so can you answer my question. Was it close & is getting closer?



The point I was making was that you can twist statistics to say anything you want. The map I showed would make it look like a massive victory for the no vote, but large parts of the yellow area are relatively uninhabited whereas the tiny proportion in blue is densely populated.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Our Australian friend, who might be quite irritated to be reminded that a majority of people in his country want to maintain Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, uses the figures for his own agenda.

A majority is a majority is a majority. That's how democracy works and whether it was one vote or a million is not the issue. The issue is that a majority of people living in Scotland rejected the proposition.

The rather nebulous arguments that they were frightened into it by the dastardly machinations of Westminster, the BBC and fairies at the bottom of the garden is rather insulting to Scots in my opinion.

In my experience, Scots don't frighten easily.

In addition to this, they can be truculent, obstreperous and stubborn to the point of being bloody minded. If you try to bully them into something, they'll do the opposite of what you want them to just because they can.

Our Aussie friend gives the impression that he doesn't like the British. I'm rather guessing he would have been delighted to see the Union fall apart. Perhaps he feels that a Yes vote for Scotland might have been advantageous to some sort of Australian Republican agenda. I'm only guessing there, but I've got a funny feeling I'm not a million miles away from the mark.

At the end of the day, the referendum was held in a fair and open manner. Both sides had the opportunity to put their argument and an unequivocal question was put to the electorate. We even extended the vote to a group of people who wouldn't usually be allowed to vote in British elections.... a group which it was expected would be against the No vote. Now that in itself is a gesture which can't be ignored.

It was a fair contest and the result he would have favoured didn't transpire. Sour grapes..? Very likely.

The issue is now decided for at least this generation. A 'generation' for referendum purposes is usually considered to be twenty five years so I doubt there will be a re-run for at least a couple of decades. What the political situation will be then (when the much-vaunted oil resources will be two decades more depleted) is anybody's guess.

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. He was right. A lot can happen in a week. The changes that may come in two decades make any prediction about how a future referendum will go futile.

The only thing we can say with certainty is that for now, it's over.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#52New Post! Nov 25, 2014 @ 13:06:15
@shadowen Said

The biggest city in Scotland voted YES...most young voters voted YES. The no vote were sufficiently scared a week or so before the election that they offered devo max when in the preceding years they had refused exactly this...


I remember the veiled & not so veiled threats of what would happen if the Brits lost Scotland.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#53New Post! Nov 25, 2014 @ 13:11:46
@Jennifer1984 Said

The point I was making was that you can twist statistics to say anything you want. The map I showed would make it look like a massive victory for the no vote, but large parts of the yellow area are relatively uninhabited whereas the tiny proportion in blue is densely populated.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Our Australian friend, who might be quite irritated to be reminded that a majority of people in his country want to maintain Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, uses the figures for his own agenda.

A majority is a majority is a majority. That's how democracy works and whether it was one vote or a million is not the issue. The issue is that a majority of people living in Scotland rejected the proposition.

The rather nebulous arguments that they were frightened into it by the dastardly machinations of Westminster, the BBC and fairies at the bottom of the garden is rather insulting to Scots in my opinion.

In my experience, Scots don't frighten easily.

In addition to this, they can be truculent, obstreperous and stubborn to the point of being bloody minded. If you try to bully them into something, they'll do the opposite of what you want them to just because they can.

Our Aussie friend gives the impression that he doesn't like the British. I'm rather guessing he would have been delighted to see the Union fall apart. Perhaps he feels that a Yes vote for Scotland might have been advantageous to some sort of Australian Republican agenda. I'm only guessing there, but I've got a funny feeling I'm not a million miles away from the mark.

At the end of the day, the referendum was held in a fair and open manner. Both sides had the opportunity to put their argument and an unequivocal question was put to the electorate. We even extended the vote to a group of people who wouldn't usually be allowed to vote in British elections.... a group which it was expected would be against the No vote. Now that in itself is a gesture which can't be ignored.

It was a fair contest and the result he would have favoured didn't transpire. Sour grapes..? Very likely.

The issue is now decided for at least this generation. A 'generation' for referendum purposes is usually considered to be twenty five years so I doubt there will be a re-run for at least a couple of decades. What the political situation will be then (when the much-vaunted oil resources will be two decades more depleted) is anybody's guess.

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. He was right. A lot can happen in a week. The changes that may come in two decades make any prediction about how a future referendum will go futile.

The only thing we can say with certainty is that for now, it's over.


I understand this. Thanks for being more in depth. I do wonder what direction the vote is headed.
I have Scot ancestors by the way- you prolly wouldn't think so as I'm ne'er ever stubborn!
Sifr On February 13, 2015




, India
#54New Post! Nov 26, 2014 @ 03:09:03
The whole question of "independence" seems to imply that Scotland is under occupation.
If so, I don't understand the meaning of a "NO" vote for independence. Do some Scots feel their country should continue to be "occupied" by the English?
I'm not well read in history but I think this is one of the very very rare cases of occupied country resisting independence.
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#55New Post! Dec 02, 2014 @ 19:56:27
@Sifr Said

The whole question of "independence" seems to imply that Scotland is under occupation.
If so, I don't understand the meaning of a "NO" vote for independence. Do some Scots feel their country should continue to be "occupied" by the English?
I'm not well read in history but I think this is one of the very very rare cases of occupied country resisting independence.





I wouldn't call it an occupation of any sort. Perhaps you may be unaware of some basic facts surrounding the history.

The English attempts at conquering Scotland militarily in the 13th and 14th centuries were ultimately unsuccessful. Scotland remained a kingdom in its own right even when the Stuart King, James VI of Scotland also became James I of England on the death of Elizabeth I who died childless in 1603 thus ending the Tudor dynasty. An English king didn't become king of Scotland, it was a Scottish king that became king of England.

Both nations remained separate states though until the Act of Union was passed in 1706 after discussions between the parliaments of both countries in which 31 ministers from each country negotiated the treaty. The formation of the Union was a fair and equitable agreement.

The formation of the Union was highly advantageous to Scotland which had been almost bankrupted by the disastrous Darien Scheme. In effect, England bailed Scotland out of a financial mess of its own making.

Since then, at no time has England attempted to "occupy" Scotland although the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745 was crushed by military force at the Battle of Culloden. Although the battle itself and the subsequent suppression of civil resistance were propagandised into being called an English atrocity, It must be pointed out that more Scots served with the Duke of Cumberland than sided with Charles Stuart.

Taking these facts into account, it is difficult to see how you can imagine that there has been an "occupation" by the English. The Scots have been democratically represented in Westminster throughout the time of the Union. Indeed, the formation of the Union was proposed by the Scots in the first place..!!!

Nobody could possibly suggest that there was any case of "taxation without representation".

I hope you have a better understanding of the background of the Union now.

When the Scots talk about "independence" they don't mean freedom from oppression or tyranny. What they mean is that they want a political breakaway from the Westminster Parliament and to have all their affairs run from the Edinburgh Parliament.

Proposals have now been put forward by Westminster to give Edinburgh greater autonomy about how they raise and spend taxes raised in Scotland, although some things such as the national budget and state pensions will still be controlled by Westminster.

As yet more powers are, in time, devolved from Westminster, as could happen, it may transpire that the union eventually morphs into a federalist system of the four home countries.

Time will tell.
jmo On January 02, 2020
Beruset af Julebryg





Yorkshire, United Kingdom
#56New Post! Dec 02, 2014 @ 20:29:54
Scotland is not occupied by England, we are in a voluntary Union with four other countries, England is one of them. Simple fact is there has been one democratic vote on whether Scotland wants to be part of the UK, and that vote was a clear and decisive endorsement of the Union.

Scotland are also the only part of the UK which have been given such a vote. It must hurt the Nats that Scotland are the only country to have democratically decided they actually want to be British.

To folk who complain about 'London rule', I wonder if they would be happy if we moved the parliament to Edinburgh. The same parliament, the same politicians etc, but just change the location. Does that turn it suddenly into 'Edinburgh Rule', and therefore OK?

Incidentally the nationalist's economic plans post-independence relied on Oil trading for $113 per barrel. Slightly more than the $68 per barrel it is currently trading at.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Tue May 10, 2011 @ 19:27
55 5945
New posts   Gender Issues
Tue Jun 30, 2009 @ 04:05
7 829
New posts   Philosophy
Thu Feb 21, 2013 @ 19:05
25 989
New posts   Video Games
Sat Jul 30, 2011 @ 09:00
1 902
New posts   Politics
Mon Apr 04, 2011 @ 11:45
6 935