Scotland to vote on independence


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

My opinion is that smaller governments closer to the people are better and more responsive than larger governments distant to the people. So, I support the "Yes" vote, despite the fact that the political leanings of a new Scottish government will likely be nearly opposite my own.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Well, I have only been in the UK for a few weeks, and today finished up touring Scotland and crossed the border back to England before it was closed, but it seemed to me that the lead up to today has been remarkably civil, given the passionate discussions it has raised.

All I've been able to pick up from the locals is that regardless of whether they're blue or purple, they all seem to genuinely want to be doing the best for Scotland.

Reggie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
I want a vote too! This is New England, not Old England, but let's not be ageist.

Do I get to vote in French elections since I live in what was once New France?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, we'll find out which way it's gone at breakfast time. Exit polls suggest the 'No' side might have a very narrow lead.

I live in the Danelaw, so I should get to vote in Danish elections, which sounds like a euphemism.

"What are you doing in those bushes, sir?"

"Er, I'm voting in Danish elections, officer"

"Pull up your trousers and come with me, please"

Sovereign Court

I don't think there is much of an appetite for regional government in England. Beyond an excitable minority in Cornwall.

Lots of people just see it as an extra layer of government.


GeraintElberion wrote:

I don't think there is much of an appetite for regional government in England. Beyond an excitable minority in Cornwall.

Lots of people just see it as an extra layer of government.

Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn!

You friend of the Saeson.....


Quote:
By that argument, the Belgians, Catalonians, and Ukranians should get a vote as well.

That's why the Scottish referendum has been massively condemned in Spain and doesn't seem to be going down well in a lot of Europe (or Canada for that matter).

Quote:

I don't think there is much of an appetite for regional government in England. Beyond an excitable minority in Cornwall.

Lots of people just see it as an extra layer of government.

I've seen fairly widespread support for it if it benefits those regions. If it doesn't, then no, it doesn't make sense. But it has become a far more popular idea in the last few years, particularly due to the viewpoint that London and a very small number of other areas (including, ironically, Scotland) have benefitted massively from the economic recovery whilst other parts of the country are in destitution. Whether a regional government can help with that problem or not is another question, but there is a perception it might.

The Exchange

Obama votes no to Scottish independance

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yellowdingo wrote:

Obama votes no to Scottish independance

It's not as facetious as one might imagine. The UK is one of America's most important allies. So we'd be pretty stupid not to be concerned with something that might have a major impact on it.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
yellowdingo wrote:

Obama votes no to Scottish independance

It's not as facetious as one might imagine. The UK is one of America's most important allies. So we'd be pretty stupid not to be concerned with something that might have a major impact on it.

Scotland intends to remain a commonwealth nation. Emailed the Scottish government and asked myself. Queen to be kept.


Yougov has "no" ahead by 8 points in exit polls.

Looks like "no" is going to win.


The Orkneys are really against it.


Votes are still being counted, but it looks really bad for the Yes campaign. I don't see any way they can get enough votes to make up the current deficit. Last I heard was 46% Yes to 54% No. Guardian and BBC have officially predicted a No victory.


And it is over. No now officially has obtained a majority of the vote. Scotland shall remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just as well. I've seen what the Union Jack would look like without the Scottish background, and it'd be a truly rubbish flag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

awwwww....

Retrieves claymore.

Sovereign Court

Quietly pleased.


Me too, though I was looking forward to a bit of border reiving. Still, there's always Lancashire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somewhere Mel Gibson is yelling, "SLAVERY!"

The Exchange

Werthead wrote:
Quote:
By that argument, the Belgians, Catalonians, and Ukranians should get a vote as well.

That's why the Scottish referendum has been massively condemned in Spain and doesn't seem to be going down well in a lot of Europe (or Canada for that matter).

Quote:

I don't think there is much of an appetite for regional government in England. Beyond an excitable minority in Cornwall.

Lots of people just see it as an extra layer of government.

I've seen fairly widespread support for it if it benefits those regions. If it doesn't, then no, it doesn't make sense. But it has become a far more popular idea in the last few years, particularly due to the viewpoint that London and a very small number of other areas (including, ironically, Scotland) have benefitted massively from the economic recovery whilst other parts of the country are in destitution. Whether a regional government can help with that problem or not is another question, but there is a perception it might.

First - thanks goodness! Better for the UK, better for Scotland, better for England.

Second - I'm not so sure about regional parliaments. Scotland, Wales and Nortern Ireland are separate countries in the Union with strong regional identities which differentiate them from the English majority. I don't really see that for, say, the North-East, West Midlands, and so on - they are much more administrative divisions than regional identities. I DO see plenty of scope for an English Parliament, since the English are the only ones not to have one, and the logic of Devo Max to Scotland will have to be applied across the country. Cameron has hinted at something to address the West Lothian Question, but it's not clear what it might be.


Vod Canockers wrote:
Somewhere Mel Gibson is yelling, "SLAVERY!"

Or, you know, "Q'PLAH!!! Q'PLAH!!!"

The Exchange

Of course, a lunatic drunk is just the role model Scotland needs.


Hm. I think it would have been interesting to what a "yes" vote would have led to. Now, Downing Street needs to make true on its promises given, otherwise the independence discussion will be back with a vengeance soon. Still, the discussion about more regional independence will not stop now, with Scotland having set an example - even if it is not the independence right now, there are (likely) some substantial benefits derived from that campaign.

I see this topic coming up in Spain (Catalunya and Basque), Belgium is on the brink of falling apart anyway, and even Italy. If you look at Eastern Europe, countries were (and some still are) falling apart all the time since 1990 (Yugoslavia, Czecheslowakia, Romania). There was a bloody war with atrocities and genocidal killings in Yugoslavia. I guess that the pressure upon the various people within this country had built up for decades and was released violently in the 90ies. This situation is probably not comparable to others, for the most part, it went peacefully.

The nations of pre-1990 Europe were mostly created by force in the 19th and 20th century, so they are not naturally grown entities. Now that the external pressure within Europe has ended for the most part, people start to look at what they have and don´t really find themselves all that well represented within the current system. Eastern Europe fell apart soon after the cold war had ended. Western Europe needed longer for that, it seems. Also, the voter turnouts are getting lower every time, which I think indicates that people generally have lost trust in politics to make the right decisions, and with the general feeling that the voters won´t change anything anyway. This probably leads to looking for a smaller scale in which they can make a difference. Big politics caters to big business and big money, so the "common man" feels left out and not seen from the lofty halls of power. But when the local head of politics lives right next door, chances that he sees you are bigger.

Regarding a more federal political structure: Germany has this, with 16 Bundesländer, a federal government right on top of that, and regional/local administrative districts. Some communities add a fourth, smaller local layer with very limited power to that. So you get to vote on the representatives on at least three levels, four if you count the EU in. This makes decisions slow, sometimes painfully so. But then, these strong federal structures help that the federal government needs to take the various interests into account in their decisions, so most regions feel well represented in the system overall, and there is no talk of any independence (at least not seriously - if you ask me, we could expulse Bavaria ;-)). I think that this system has worked good enough the past 60 years.

The Exchange

I don't think there's a genuine correlation between the size of a polity, its accountability to the people and its level of corruption. Montenegro is hardly the epitome of clean government. The Catalonian independence movement has taken a hit as Jordy Pujol, it's leader for years, has just been found out as having illegally salted away millions of euros in Switzerland. And local politics is often much more corrupt than national politics, because the level of scrutiny isn't there. I think "small is beautiful" is a line peddled by a lot of nationalists but they are still as inclined to cut deals with business as larger countries - possibly more so, since a small country is easier to buy than a big one. What really matters is the strength of institutions and civil society.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I don't think there's a genuine correlation between the size of a polity, its accountability to the people and its level of corruption. Montenegro is hardly the epitome of clean government. The Catalonian independence movement has taken a hit as Jordy Pujol, it's leader for years, has just been found out as having illegally salted away millions of euros in Switzerland. And local politics is often much more corrupt than national politics, because the level of scrutiny isn't there. I think "small is beautiful" is a line peddled by a lot of nationalists but they are still as inclined to cut deals with business as larger countries - possibly more so, since a small country is easier to buy than a big one. What really matters is the strength of institutions and civil society.

I guess I did not get that across as I wanted to. I don´t necessarily think that smaller is better. It is just a sentiment many people subscribe to, as they feel left alone in the big game of global politics. This sentiment is understandable, and all the right-wing populist parties across Europe do get votes from that, because they seem to offer simple solutions to complex problems, and in many cases these solutions include throwing out foreigners, undermining democratic structures and restricting freedom in some way. Look at Hungary for an example. Victor Orban recently stated something to the effect that he does not think that democracy is the right way, seeing authoritarian or even autocratic governments as much better. This position may seem extreme, but some people talk about "postdemocratic" structures, in which the voters don´t have any power beyond voting, and with most parties being only marginally different these days, this power is almost meaningless. The real decisions are made by governmental structures which have grown uncontrollable. I don´t fully subscribe to that, but there is some merit to this theory.

Corruption has indeed nothing to do with the size of a country, but rather with mentality. But this is another topic entirely.

The Exchange

The two poster children for "post-democratic" government are China and Singapore. They are both pretty different but effectively they allow business a relatively high degree of freedom but with the rights to political expression limited. It's effectively a bargain between the rulers and the ruled - keep your mouth shut and we'll make you rich. The problem with those models is that a grwoing middle class generally wants more than just food on the table. Singapore is relatively uncorrupt, as it pays its government ministers very well, and it's ministers are generally very competent. China is very corrupt, but has the coercive power of the Communist Party and police state. The supposed benefit on post-democratic government is in getting stuff done. However, a lack of accountability could lead to a lot of the stuff done that most people, except a small coterie, don't want. It effectively ignores individual rights in the interest of government policy.

I'm not really that up on Viktor Orban, but in general I don't see too many countries in Europe being generally keen to make such a pact with their ruling classes. The one, main strength of democracy is to allow change without violence - even with all the compromises and dodgy-looking deals, if you can throw the buggers out if you don't like them at the ballot box, it saves you having to have a civil war. The Scotland thing was a case in point - because the UK has a very strong democratic tradition, we could handle something like the Scotland referendum and were willing to put something this fundamental to the people. A failure to handle these things right (like we did, arguably, in Northern Ireland) leads to violence. Pretty much everyone in the UK would prefer to let Scotland go rather than have to fight a war to keep them against their will. As it is, the referendum has been run, and the result accepted by all sides.

As for Orban, there are plenty of people who don't think the way he does in Hungary, I'm sure - he just doesn't want to have to listen to them or cede power to them democratically. Which is probably a bad idea, in the long run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most european countries have learned their lesson about dictatorships and similar sorts of rulership the hard way, so generally, they ought to be wary about anybody trying to install himself as a new "strong man". I hope that Hungary sees what this guy is up to and kicks him out in time.

Democracy and civil liberties are values hard won and easily lost. I have the impression that these days are a lot of con men around in politics, who seem to uphold these values, but are only interested in what can be gained for themselves and their buddies. Corruption does not necessarily mean to take money, but in a broader sense includes decisions made for the advantage of a select clientele, to the detriment of public interest.
With that definition, I have the impression that corruption runs rampant with these guys.

The scottish referendum was surely the right way to handle this. It was hotly (and AFAIK, in some cases violently) debated, which is probably to be expected for such a fundamental question - but if these emotions would have been suppressed, there might have been real violence.

Sovereign Court

Ironically, or fittingly perhaps, the Scottish referendum was, in retrospect, a great advert for Britain.

I don't foresee an English parliament (in a sense, there already is one) but rather some kind of technical voting settlement for West Lothian issues.

Regional assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland probably clarifies the topics: it is easier to label things as only-affecting-England now.

London still dominates: that's the real 'English Question'. I can't see Cameron addressing that.


Quote:
I don't really see that for, say, the North-East, West Midlands, and so on - they are much more administrative divisions than regional identities. I DO see plenty of scope for an English Parliament, since the English are the only ones not to have one, and the logic of Devo Max to Scotland will have to be applied across the country. Cameron has hinted at something to address the West Lothian Question, but it's not clear what it might be.

If you asked someone from Manchester or Yorkshire if they were culturally the same as someone from London or Kent, it would really not go down very well. Regional identities in the UK can be very distinctive in terms of language, food and political leanings. The country is reasonably small but the regions that make it up (and I'm just talking about England by itself here) are quite protective of their own identities.

Heck, this is even true in Wales where people from Cardiff are seen as being distinctly different to natives of the valleys to people who live on the coast, or on Anglesey.

It can seem crazy to people from other, much larger countries (where there is nothing like as much cultural differentiation across much greater distances), but the UK really is a melting pot of different cultures and has been for thousands of years. England itself is a union of seven distinct pre-medieval kingdoms and some of those distinctive qualities crazily remain a thousand years on.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I don't think there's a genuine correlation between the size of a polity, its accountability to the people and its level of corruption. Montenegro is hardly the epitome of clean government. The Catalonian independence movement has taken a hit as Jordy Pujol, it's leader for years, has just been found out as having illegally salted away millions of euros in Switzerland. And local politics is often much more corrupt than national politics, because the level of scrutiny isn't there. I think "small is beautiful" is a line peddled by a lot of nationalists but they are still as inclined to cut deals with business as larger countries - possibly more so, since a small country is easier to buy than a big one. What really matters is the strength of institutions and civil society.

Jordi Pujol was not an independentist when he was President, only later. The money was on both Andorra and Switzerland.Just to clarify.

The situation here on Catalonia is really complex. CiU, the political party of Jordi Pujol and current President Artur Mas only become truly separatist AFTER the great popular movement of 11 September of 2011 (11 September is the national catalonian day). Before CiU was highly nationalist, but not really pro-independence.

The level of distrust between Catalonia and "Madrid" (read as "central Spain") is really high. Is important to note that the current power of the regions here on Spain is higher than on many other countries. The problem is in great part a cultural one; the status of the local language versus the Spanish is an important part of the conflict. Of course, there is an economic part for the problem ("Espanya ens roba" "Spain steal from us" is a major slogan for the independence movement).

Personally, I don't want the Independence. BUT I want a referendum for it, and then vote for "no". The Spain Government negative to allow the referendum and arrogance about it is making many people here to move to the Independence movement(Spanish government seems to have finally understood that, is now equally negative for the referendum, but less strident about it). I am Spanish AND Catalan, something that hearing many people in both sides are more difficult each moment. On less than two months are prepared the illegal referendum. No idea what will happen then.

Finally, just mark that the political corruption level on Spain is astounding, both on national and local levels. On Valencia, near half the local parliament has serious problems with the justice a couple years ago. Catalonia have a great problem here, but near everyday we hear some news about some justice problem of some politician or royal family member. That makes that people is really tired of the traditional political parties. That happens on all Spain, but on Catalonia the independence movement makes a great profit of it.

The Exchange

Werthead wrote:
If you asked someone from Manchester or Yorkshire if they were culturally the same as someone from London or Kent, it would really not go down very well.

My wife is from Yorkshire, I'm from London, so I know what you mean. But still, these people have all been English for well over a thousand years. Most people have absolutely no idea about Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The same isn't true of the Welsh, Scots and Irish. I don't see there being a real entusiasm for regional assemblies - they'd be little more than glorified county councils. Attempts at regional devolution got nowhere under Labour, nor did the city mayoralities under the Conservatives. Labour, of course, is probably more in favour of regional assemblies as they expect to dominate some of those in a way it simply couldn't a national English assembly (though arguably they could consider WHY they would struggle, though I suspect Milliband doesn't want to think that far).

Theyu could also be seriously divisive. Already, we are beginning to see the whole edifice of how public spending and the funding thereof is beginning to be questioned as a result of the referendum and promises of devolution and transfer of taxation powers. See an intersting article by Robert Peston, the basic gist of which is that England largely pays for extra government spending in the devolved regions, and if taxation powers are also devolved it puts into question whether English taxpayers want to pay that anymore. However, tax transfers are also the glue that hold together a country and economy - part of the reason for the problems in the euro zone is the half-way house of the same currency (and monetary policy) but no fiscal transfers to troubled regions (unlike, say the federal system of the US or, indeed, the Barnett formula here in the UK). Now, when you say "England" in the this context, you are really saying London and the South-East. Imagine London deciding, under devolved powers, it doesn't actually want to pay for the largess of a regional government in the North-East, nevermind Scotland...

The Exchange

GeraintElberion wrote:
I don't foresee an English parliament (in a sense, there already is one) but rather some kind of technical voting settlement for West Lothian issues.

Problem is, it could really make life hard for a Labour government if they didn't have a separate assembly for England to decide English issues. If they simply deny Scottish MPs the right to vote on English legislation, then a Labour governemnt probably couldn't pass most of its policies. It'd be a political disaster.

And London will dominate, come what may. Frankly, with a higher population and much higher GDP than Scotland, they deserve their own assembly (though that would probably be bad for the rest of the country).


The UK has a population of 64 million and that of London is 8 million - 1 in 8 Brits is in London. Hard to see how it can not dominate.

Sovereign Court

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
I don't foresee an English parliament (in a sense, there already is one) but rather some kind of technical voting settlement for West Lothian issues.

Problem is, it could really make life hard for a Labour government if they didn't have a separate assembly for England to decide English issues. If they simply deny Scottish MPs the right to vote on English legislation, then a Labour governemnt probably couldn't pass most of its policies. It'd be a political disaster.

And London will dominate, come what may. Frankly, with a higher population and much higher GDP than Scotland, they deserve their own assembly (though that would probably be bad for the rest of the country).

I think the solution would probably be to pass national policy and then, afterwards, have regions tweak it.

The vast majority of British law is applied nationally at the moment and I don't see that changing.

Councils have a certain flexibility in taxation but it does not require a separate vote for each county.

I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution but it is a perfectly manageable one for Labour.

It seems equally likely/unlikely that the Conservatives will try to engineer English-only laws to drive through policy.

The British people are fine with bumbling along with some funny traditions but tend to take against extreme gamesmanship. I can't picture a US style conflict politics thing working here.


Ya'll have more than two parties, and you don't have the US's winner take all system that makes two parties neigh inevitable.

If two of the are playing tug of war over there, a third can hop in as a tie breaker. Here? The rules make it VERY hard to move the rope and tying it to a flagpole is pretty easy.

The Exchange

Vod Canockers wrote:
Somewhere Mel Gibson is yelling, "SLAVERY!"

So what went wrong? Did anouncing the referendum a year ago cause a massive number of loyalists to move north to take up citizenship in scotland and thus topple the vote?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yellowdingo wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Somewhere Mel Gibson is yelling, "SLAVERY!"
So what went wrong? Did anouncing the referendum a year ago cause a massive number of loyalists to move north to take up citizenship in scotland and thus topple the vote?

For that to happen, you'd have to assume that there was a major majority for independence in the first place.

Do you know that the bulk of the funding for the Scottish Independence Movement came from a single lottery winner?

The Exchange

yellowdingo wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Somewhere Mel Gibson is yelling, "SLAVERY!"
So what went wrong? Did anouncing the referendum a year ago cause a massive number of loyalists to move north to take up citizenship in scotland and thus topple the vote?

No - this happened, accroding to this pollster.

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ya'll have more than two parties, and you don't have the US's winner take all system that makes two parties neigh inevitable.

If two of the are playing tug of war over there, a third can hop in as a tie breaker. Here? The rules make it VERY hard to move the rope and tying it to a flagpole is pretty easy.

We still have two big parties and a winner takes all system - our first-past-the-post system makes smaller parties' lives difficult. The coalition we have is fairly unusual in UK terms. Power has alternated between labour and the Conservtives since the war.


4 am reading of first past the post Headscratch

Hmmm.. how is this different from winner take all? I'm missing something here.

The Exchange

GeraintElberion wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
I don't foresee an English parliament (in a sense, there already is one) but rather some kind of technical voting settlement for West Lothian issues.

Problem is, it could really make life hard for a Labour government if they didn't have a separate assembly for England to decide English issues. If they simply deny Scottish MPs the right to vote on English legislation, then a Labour governemnt probably couldn't pass most of its policies. It'd be a political disaster.

And London will dominate, come what may. Frankly, with a higher population and much higher GDP than Scotland, they deserve their own assembly (though that would probably be bad for the rest of the country).

I think the solution would probably be to pass national policy and then, afterwards, have regions tweak it.

The vast majority of British law is applied nationally at the moment and I don't see that changing.

Councils have a certain flexibility in taxation but it does not require a separate vote for each county.

I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution but it is a perfectly manageable one for Labour.

It seems equally likely/unlikely that the Conservatives will try to engineer English-only laws to drive through policy.

The British people are fine with bumbling along with some funny traditions but tend to take against extreme gamesmanship. I can't picture a US style conflict politics thing working here.

I'm not really sure how that will work. And I'm not sure your assertion about British law is necessarily true - education and plenty of other stuff is decided on a devolved basis. And what does tinkering mean in this context - do you have a model you are referring to?

Councils can move council tax up and down a bit but most of their revenue is a central government grant, I believe.

I'm not convinced by your bumbling through comment either. The rise of UKIP suggest the tolerance for bumbling through in general is pretty low, especially where this bumbling seems to benefit a few people and leave others behind. The referendum has been an extremely obvious event that will cause people to notice the disprity, especially since the story is fanned by on ongoing process to devolve more power and the wrangle between the Conservatives and Labour (both fairly self-serving, but I suspect Labour will come off looking worse since there is an essential fairness in devolution for England too whereas Labour's blocking tactics are nakedly about retaining power at Westminster). UKIP has adopted this as an issue too. I think when times were much easier there was less pressure and the West Lothian question was not an issue under Labout given its whacking great majorities. With everything that's gone on over the last few months, I think the genie is out of the bottle (to wax cliched).

The Exchange

BigNorseWolf wrote:

4 am reading of first past the post Headscratch

Hmmm.. how is this different from winner take all? I'm missing something here.

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes - I thought you were saying we didn't have a first-past-the-post system here in the UK, when we do.

The Exchange

promise of more Scottish rights a lie

See you at next year's independence referendum.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The referendum was less than a week ago. Salmond was saying the Scots had been misled the day after. More like sour grapes than anything else. The parties haven't even had a chance to discuss what they are going to do next.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The referendum was less than a week ago. Salmond was saying the Scots had been misled the day after. More like sour grapes than anything else. The parties haven't even had a chance to discuss what they are going to do next.

The UK government surely is not so boneheaded as to just lean back, do nothing and expect business as usual in Scotland. If they would, the situation could escalate - not into a civil war or something on that scale. But telling people that they will get something if they vote no, and then not keeping that promise (well, campaign pledges work that way....) will surely lead to loud protests and could even lead to riots as well. Another referendum for independence would be in the future as well, and with broken promises behind that, chances are that the result will differ. So, I´d see Salmonds statements as those of a sore loser, and a doomsayer, without any substance behind that.

The Exchange

Exactly - which is why all parties have agreed to implement further devolution for Scotland and have reiterated that. But it has also turned into a broader discussion about what to offer the other devolved assemblies and, by far the biggest element, the English who have no assembly of their own, while Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs all have a say in English affairs that is not reciprocated by English MPs.

However, Salmond has half a point in that there isn't STRICTLY a need to offer anything to the English while Scottish devolution could go ahead without necessarily conflating the English situation with it. But there is a strong political logic to linking the two, especially as the English are beginning to get restive. Salmond doesn't have to think about the English, Cameron does.

He also has a half a point in that Cameron has set a trap for Labour and outflanked UKIP, so Cameron's combination of the issues is pretty naked party politics rather than lofty idealism - although so is the "do nothing" position of the Labour party, and anyway, that's just the cut-and-thrust of politics. Salmond would do exactly the same if the boot was on the other foot, so his whining is pretty hypocritical.


Quote:
For that to happen, you'd have to assume that there was a major majority for independence in the first place.

Support for independence in Scotland has traditionally hovered at 30% or less for decades (since the 1970s at least) and the independence movement was trailing by a dozen points as recently as the summer. The real shock was how much ground the Yes vote gained in the last few weeks. The reasons for that still aren't clear, but Westminster arrogance and refusal to negotiate or engage on certain issues has been blamed, as has the impact of so many young, first-time voters. There's also the fact that Scotland is actually economically in a pretty good state at the moment (a lower unemployment rate than London), which bolsters confidence.

The Exchange

Interestingly, though, the trajectory followed the Quebec referendum quite closely - see this. So it's maybe not that surprising.

Dark Archive

Yeah lot of bad grapes from the yes side and a lot of plane old being moronic jerks on the no side.

Sovereign Court

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
...snip...I'm not convinced by your bumbling through comment either. The rise of UKIP suggest the tolerance for bumbling through in general is pretty low, especially where this bumbling seems to benefit a few people and leave others behind...snip...

We have had a system which benefits the few at the expense of the many for all of recorded history. I can't really see that changing any time soon.

And we've always put up with it: I can't imagine major protests for a fair society any time soon.

The idea that UKIP are supported because people want decisive leadership is laughable. Is Farage selling himself as anything but an affable bumbler?

151 to 200 of 231 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Scotland to vote on independence All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.