Scots Vote

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: radic202


I sit back and read all the arguments pro and against and they are exactly the same arguments that Quebec vs Canada had on 2 occasions. Everyone in here seems to forget that Canada went through 2 Quebec Separatist Referendums. On both occasions the "NO" side won as I look back it has taken years to even get close to any kind of quietness and the issue still comes up for debate amongst the few In Canada/Quebec's cases the Language issue was more of an issue in the debate then the Territorial one we see here. But the similarities are about the same in everything else. Conquered nation, different base cultures, people of mixed ethnicity, marriages and families (like in my case) from both sides of the border, economic ties, currency, debts etc...I can still remember how I cried the night of the results (the second one), I ask you all before you go and debate what if scenarios, simply read up on what happened in Quebec and Canada in 1980 and 1995. So sad though that everyone in here seems to have forgotten what it can and what it will do to 2 people of the same nation.

Am I the only one in here who has not forgotten? Anyways, my heart goes out to all the voters who will have a difficult decision to make.

Now my turn to go read up on why the Aussies decided to keep the Queen (Monarchy) as their head of State on their Referendum: that to me is a personal dilemma that I will never understand.

Scotland was not a Conquered nation when it rejoined the English. In fact the King of Scotland became the King of England.

Conquered may be too strong a word in this case but when one nation or a group of people submit to another nation I consider it conquered. I am not versed on Scottish History so I may be mistaken here and thanks for the insight. Go read the Act of Quebec in 1774 and read what was imposed on the French Canadians in order to "abide" by British Rule. That was a long time ago and mainly forgotten by many but not the few, hence why we had 2 Referendums.

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Scotland, a conquered nation? I don't think so.

Re the Queen and out of curiosity, why is that a personal dilemma?

With all due respect to you warspite1, I am probably the most anti-monarchist there is. The most anti-democratic form of political Leadership that has ever existed and the fact that it continues in this day and age confuses the heck out of me. I leave it at that as to not derail this Thread.

[Mobius]

I think a yes vote will give a lot of other little territories the idea they can break off and start their own country. But since the Eu has a number of pigmy states already in it so what's the harm? Let the Walloons go their separate way as well. I mean most of the countries in the EU aren't pulling their own weight militarily. And historically smaller countries were often forced to become part of a large nation any ways.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

Hey guys just an observation I hope doesn't upset anyone and let me make clear I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS THEAD REMAINING UNLOCKED.

Interesting that early on a post was made predicting it may be locked. Not only is it still going, it looks like three or more of the Matrix staff are participating in it. This is a very interesting and informative thread. I just have a feeling that if one of us began posting details about why our American State should leave the U.S it wouldn't have lasted very long.[;)]

I think its great that people who clearly disagree profoundly, over something that for some is an issue of personal identity, can debate with politeness.

Picking up on:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Yes, stories of some of the abuse towards those speaking out for No is quite shocking. I also think that this sort of thing is more likely to result in a Yes vote than perhaps is the case on the face of it. People will be almost afraid to vote No in case its a Yes win.

"So you voted No then?......."

Taxi for the Yes voter....

and keeping to the spirit. Not true. Police Scotland have got very annoyed today with Unionist politicians making these claims (& this is the second time in a few weeks they have felt the need to make such an announcement). There is really no widespread nastiness, there a few nutters and there is no evidence that tomorrow (& friday) will be anything but perfectly normal ... except that on thursday 80-85% of the adult population will be voting and on friday 50%+/- of the population will be acquiring a hangover.

Also the sheer volume of voters is why I do not believe any opinion poll (& not because they want to be wrong but they have no basis for their usual judgements). The usual electoral roll in Scotland is around 80% of the eligible population and, in Scottish or UK elections, around 55% vote.

For this, the electoral roll is 97.?% and the likely turn out is 85%. The pollsters really have no means to gauge the impact (nor do I, nor does anyone). But having put effort into voter registration myself, I'd suspect many are not going to vote for the first time (or the first time in a long time) for the status quo. But, in a profound way, I don't care. We've managed to prove that democratic politics in a western Country is not an elite sport from which the bulk are excluded - that alone is worth a lot.

ORIGINAL: radic202

With all due respect to you warspite1, I am probably the most anti-monarchist there is. The most anti-democratic form of political Leadership that has ever existed and the fact that it continues in this day and age confuses the heck out of me. I leave it at that as to not derail this Thread.

mmhh, we can an off line debate as to which of us is the most anti-monarchist [8D]. I fancy turning a variety of Royal 'palaces' in Scotland to a more democratic use when we get around to sensible land reform [:)]. Chazza et al, can attend on the same basis as the rest of the population if they so wish.

[Chickenboy]

I'm watching the vote with interest over on this side of the pond. I'll leave my personal hopes for the vote aside for the time being, but am bound to ask those in the know how a simple majority (50% +1) of the popular vote could dissolve a nation state?

It's very difficult to change our Constitution, for example. As it should be. It takes the ratification from state legislatures (Constitutional Congress) or two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. A proposed Constitutional amendment is passed when it is ratified by three-quarters (38 of 50) states.

Point being: it's difficult, laborious and time-consuming to amend important pieces of one's political birthright. How did it come to a simple 'thumbs up / down' popular vote with 50% sufficient to pass? It wasn't so long ago that 50% of Canadians thought Justin Bieber, Alan Thicke or Celine Dion were good ideas. [;)]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm watching the vote with interest over on this side of the pond. I'll leave my personal hopes for the vote aside for the time being, but am bound to ask those in the know how a simple majority (50% +1) of the popular vote could dissolve a nation state?

It's very difficult to change our Constitution, for example. As it should be. It takes the ratification from state legislatures (Constitutional Congress) or two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. A proposed Constitutional amendment is passed when it is ratified by three-quarters (38 of 50) states.

Point being: it's difficult, laborious and time-consuming to amend important pieces of one's political birthright. How did it come to a simple 'thumbs up / down' popular vote with 50% sufficient to pass? It wasn't so long ago that 50% of Canadians thought Justin Bieber, Alan Thicke or Celine Dion were good ideas. [;)]

The reason for 50% +1 has its basis in an earlier devolution referendum in 1979. Then 33% of Scots voted yes, 31% no, and 36% couldnae be bothered. Now it was a rigged vote in many ways, one was it had a threshold criteria - more yes and over 40%. It was rigged as the baseline was the 1977 electoral roll, so if you'd died, or moved, you were on the roll and counted as not voting (or for all intents and purposes voting no).

With that bit of history, there was no way could this time be anything but win the popular vote on the day. Now as we are likely to be seeing 85% turnout tomorrow (my post above), that may be less relevant.

Your constraints and checks and balances will come into play in the post-vote, pre-independence negotiations (assuming a Yes vote). Both sides will have to compromise, as I've written elsewhere 'the last 3 months have been filled with good politics and rubbish public policy making'. Whatever the outcome, we need to get back to realism.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm watching the vote with interest over on this side of the pond. I'll leave my personal hopes for the vote aside for the time being, but am bound to ask those in the know how a simple majority (50% +1) of the popular vote could dissolve a nation state?

It's very difficult to change our Constitution, for example. As it should be. It takes the ratification from state legislatures (Constitutional Congress) or two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. A proposed Constitutional amendment is passed when it is ratified by three-quarters (38 of 50) states.

Point being: it's difficult, laborious and time-consuming to amend important pieces of one's political birthright. How did it come to a simple 'thumbs up / down' popular vote with 50% sufficient to pass? It wasn't so long ago that 50% of Canadians thought Justin Bieber, Alan Thicke or Celine Dion were good ideas. [;)]

The reason for 50% +1 has its basis in an earlier devolution referendum in 1979. Then 33% of Scots voted yes, 31% no, and 36% couldnae be bothered. Now it was a rigged vote in many ways, one was it had a threshold criteria - more yes and over 40%. It was rigged as the baseline was the 1977 electoral roll, so if you'd died, or moved, you were on the roll and counted as not voting (or for all intents and purposes voting no).

With that bit of history, there was no way could this time be anything but win the popular vote on the day. Now as we are likely to be seeing 85% turnout tomorrow (my post above), that may be less relevant.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. There was no way but a popular (50% +1) vote on the day? How did that number (50%) get enshrined instead of the previous 40% or 60% or 66.6% (two-thirds) or 75% (three-quarters)?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: radic202

Conquered may be too strong a word in this case but when one nation or a group of people submit to another nation I consider it conquered. I am not versed on Scottish History so I may be mistaken here and thanks for the insight.

We are not 'unfree' or a 'colony' or even 'oppressed' in any conventional sense.

But, the Act of Union (1707) was profoundly undemocratic, it was passed by small cabal of rich nobles (Robert Burns' poem 'parcel of rogues in a nation' captures this perfectly ... if you can read lowland Scots). There were widespread riots. Indirectly it led to the Jacobite revolts of 1715 and 1745.

Now they are contentious, there was a degree of revolt against the Act of Union in them - but because the Act of Union had led to Hannoverian (Protestant) Kings and the force behind both revolts was support for the Catholic Stuarts who had been overthrown in 1688. In Scotland, both were civil wars, fractured on Highland vs Lowland and Protestant vs Catholic, and to a lesser extent east coast vs west coast (we do tend to war with ourselves, but this more or less reflected who had gained from 1707 and who had been disadvantaged). The defeat of the Stuarts in 1746 was widely welcomed in Protestant lowland Scotland.

What followed was a near conscious decision by our middle classes to colonise the new State (& the Empire it forged). For the poor, it was less good, but many went to the Americas or Australia (some voluntarily) and of course serving in the British army was an option. In the latter respect its worth remembering that both in the European wars in the era 1700-12 and the Seven Years Wars, Scottish battalions served both the French and the English - and clashed at Malpaquarte (spelling? in 1707) and possibly at Minden in the Seven Years War.

[PipFromSlitherine]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm watching the vote with interest over on this side of the pond. I'll leave my personal hopes for the vote aside for the time being, but am bound to ask those in the know how a simple majority (50% +1) of the popular vote could dissolve a nation state?

It's very difficult to change our Constitution, for example. As it should be. It takes the ratification from state legislatures (Constitutional Congress) or two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. A proposed Constitutional amendment is passed when it is ratified by three-quarters (38 of 50) states.

Point being: it's difficult, laborious and time-consuming to amend important pieces of one's political birthright. How did it come to a simple 'thumbs up / down' popular vote with 50% sufficient to pass? It wasn't so long ago that 50% of Canadians thought Justin Bieber, Alan Thicke or Celine Dion were good ideas. [;)]

The reason for 50% +1 has its basis in an earlier devolution referendum in 1979. Then 33% of Scots voted yes, 31% no, and 36% couldnae be bothered. Now it was a rigged vote in many ways, one was it had a threshold criteria - more yes and over 40%. It was rigged as the baseline was the 1977 electoral roll, so if you'd died, or moved, you were on the roll and counted as not voting (or for all intents and purposes voting no).

With that bit of history, there was no way could this time be anything but win the popular vote on the day. Now as we are likely to be seeing 85% turnout tomorrow (my post above), that may be less relevant.

Your constraints and checks and balances will come into play in the post-vote, pre-independence negotiations (assuming a Yes vote). Both sides will have to compromise, as I've written elsewhere 'the last 3 months have been filled with good politics and rubbish public policy making'. Whatever the outcome, we need to get back to realism.

The fact the (potentially) a single person could decide whether half of Scotland are stripped of the citizenship they want to keep doesn't sit well with me either. I think that the key 'realism' that the Yes are losing sight of is that once there is a Yes vote all the leverage is gone. I don't believe that enough Yes understand the anger that the rest of Britain has that a tiny % get to break up our nation. There are far better ways of fixing broken politics than taking your ball and going home (something of a childish metaphor, but it seems most apt). Want a fairer society? Use the taxing powers that already exists (and the broader ones already set to come online in 2016) to build it. Show the rest of the UK a better way - it's not like there aren't a lot of people who feel the same way.

Cheers

Pip

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. There was no way but a popular (50% +1) vote on the day? How did that number (50%) get enshrined instead of the previous 40% or 60% or 66.6% (two-thirds) or 75% (three-quarters)?

Sorry dippy typing.

In effect what I meant was of the votes caste tomorrow, the side with one more vote than the other wins. Since its a binary choice (Yes/No) one side will get at least 50% of the vote, plus one more.

Unless of course we really are thrawn enough (a good Scots word) to go and actually split evenly ... God knows what happens then [:@]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. There was no way but a popular (50% +1) vote on the day? How did that number (50%) get enshrined instead of the previous 40% or 60% or 66.6% (two-thirds) or 75% (three-quarters)?

Sorry dippy typing.

In effect what I meant was of the votes caste tomorrow, the side with one more vote than the other wins. Since its a binary choice (Yes/No) one side will get at least 50% of the vote, plus one more.

Unless of course we really are thrawn enough (a good Scots word) to go and actually split evenly ... God knows what happens then [:@]

loki100, your typing was clear and understandable. What I don't understand (still) is how 50%+1 could be identified as a meaningful percentage for such a monumentally important referendum.

I attempted to humorously point out that 50%+1 of people can be an ephemeral majority whose collective judgement can be seen (in retrospect) to be fleeting and illogical.

Why not set the up/down vote of the day % basis at a more demanding 60% / 66.6% / 75%? There's precedence elsewhere.

ETA: Changed the subject line to reflect the OP topic.

[radic202]

Thanks loki100 for the quick history lesson.

I particular like this:

Scottish battalions served both the French and the English

This is loosely based on my history knowledge so not 100% accurate: French Canadians who had been forced to bow to British Rule with the despised act of Quebec where actually the first to come to the aide of the British with their Amerindian Friends (Iroquois, Metis, Mohawks etc...)when the Americans tried to invade Canada in the War of 1812. They basically felt that British rule at that time was better for them then if the Americans had totally pushed the English out of North America. They rather be surrounded by 1 Million Protestant English Canadians then 10 million Yanks. In a way and without prior-knowledge, after the defeat of the Americans, the British changed a huge bunch of articles which lead to more French language rights and of course more Catholic rights, officially written in years later as "The British North America Act of 1867" hence now why Quebec has managed to keep themselves strong and "distinct" in a sea of 450 Million English Speaking North Americans.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: radic202
a sea of 450 Million English Speaking North Americans.

Eh?

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: radic202
a sea of 450 Million English Speaking North Americans.

Eh?

Oops make it 350 Million USA = 313 and Canada = 37 million (+/- 6 million French Speaking Canadians.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: radic202

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: radic202
a sea of 450 Million English Speaking North Americans.

Eh?

Oops make it 350 Million USA = 313 and Canada = 37 million (+/- 6 million French Speaking Canadians.

Better. [;)]

So you're not rising to my bait on Alan Thicke and his ilk? [:'(]

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: radic202

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Eh?

Oops make it 350 Million USA = 313 and Canada = 37 million (+/- 6 million French Speaking Canadians.

Better. [;)]

So you're not rising to my bait on Alan Thicke and his ilk? [:'(]

No, entertainers are not my cup of tea have as much fun insulting them, making fun of them or whatever, whether they are Canucks, Yanks, Aussies, Kiwis or British.....except if you are from Greece and are called Angelina Jolie..............

[Bill Durrant]

Just my small input into the debate.

I regard myself as first British, second English and third European. I have, and always will have, a closer affinity with the home nations and regularly cheer them on at sporting events unless they are playing England. This isn't always reciprocated I don't wish the Union to cease as I agree that our collective presence is better.

However, I have worked with and become friends with many people who have gained independence or greater independence in recent history. Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Kosovo, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. They all seem to agree that although greater independence is not an easy road in the beginning it brings hope for future generations. Now, I do agree not every situation reflects another.

All said and done - Scotland, if you vote 'No' tomorrow then you will be welcomed to continue in the Union. The fact that you a separate nation is never doubted and I fully understand a wish of decentralised power - however far that may go. If you vote "Yes' I will personally have no hard feeling and wish you the very best in establishing a modern independent country that you will be proud of.

[Chickenboy]

Bill,

That was right pleasant and gentlemanly of you. [&o]

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment if I may: Have you had discussions with denizens of countries for which the efforts towards an independent state have brought naught but ruinous calamity? Or at the very least, a slide toward unified irrelevance? For there certainly are those examples by the roadside of history as well.

[Bill Durrant]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Bill,

That was right pleasant and gentlemanly of you. [&o]

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment if I may: Have you had discussions with denizens of countries for which the efforts towards an independent state have brought naught but ruinous calamity? Or at the very least, a slide toward unified irrelevance? For there certainly are those examples by the roadside of history as well.

Well each country has its own peculiarities and reasons for wanting independence. Some on economic grounds, some religious, and some just plain historical. Some are still fairly divided Bosnia and Cyprus for instance. Some are riddled with corrupt practices that weren't so prevalent before. However, I don't think i've met anyone who wishes they could go back to the days of lesser independence.

[radic202]

ORIGINAL: Bill Durrant

Just my small input into the debate.

I regard myself as first British, second English and third European. I have, and always will have, a closer affinity with the home nations and regularly cheer them on at sporting events unless they are playing England. This isn't always reciprocated I don't wish the Union to cease as I agree that our collective presence is better.

However, I have worked with and become friends with many people who have gained independence or greater independence in recent history. Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Kosovo, Albania, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. They all seem to agree that although greater independence is not an easy road in the beginning it brings hope for future generations. Now, I do agree not every situation reflects another.

All said and done - Scotland, if you vote 'No' tomorrow then you will be welcomed to continue in the Union. The fact that you a separate nation is never doubted and I fully understand a wish of decentralised power - however far that may go. If you vote "Yes' I will personally have no hard feeling and wish you the very best in establishing a modern independent country that you will be proud of.

Bill, that was awesome.

In a context like this, emotions play a large role. I still have family members who do not speak to each other and even boycott family weddings and funerals because of all the infighting that occurred during our 2 Referendums. And that was 20 years ago! Again all based on emotions, especially in my case with a French Canadian Catholic Father and an English Canadian Protestant Nova-Scotian Mother and my sister and I caught in the middle. And in Canada like in Scotland we do not use guns or weapons to argue, I can just imagine how it was like in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Chechnya etc.....