Independence SE Poll

[Kelvin]

Just remembered that I watched it, they were standing by a loch or river.

He is not a stupid man, so why does he not realise that statements such as "the Westminster gang start to renege on the solemn vows they made during the campaign." do him no favours at all.

Also "my policy is to abolish the House of Lords", where does he intend to get the power from to carry out that threat?

tut

Divide and conquer tut.

[tut]

and just how many of the house of lords are Scottish?

Considering our last PM was also Scottish (Brown) not really sure what the complaints are about?

785 Qeers total, 63 of them are Scottish, 14 of the latter have not uttered a word in the past year.

tut

[Rosssco]

I doubt it will be 20 years till the next referendum.

I agree. Should be ~30 years minimum.

At which stage, we'll be almost fully devolved, oil revenue will be but a relative trickle, and the Scottish parliment will have had the chance to mature and people to realise they make mistakes too..

[Rosssco]

and just how many of the house of lords are Scottish?

Considering our last PM was also Scottish (Brown) not really sure what the complaints are about?

785 Qeers total, 63 of them are Scottish, 14 of the latter have not uttered a word in the past year.

tut

I guess the concept of the House of Lords is perfectly valid (2nd chamber / house, which the Scottish gov does not currently have). Its the fact that they are unelected that's the issue..

So do we have a situation where we have a senate election campaign, or nominations and internal elections within the parties in the House of Commons?

[pete]

I know a lot have a low opinion of Salmond but I thought this painted a different view.

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/alex-salmond/24653

[neil]

William Hague talking to Andrew Neil about the result. Most interesting bit is where they discuss the Barnett formula at 5:30.

Watch on YouTube

[jason]

I doubt it will be 20 years till the next referendum.

I agree. Should be ~30 years minimum.

The flaw with the notion of holding referendums on a relatively short frequency ad infinitum, is that chance is one day there may be an opinion peak that coincides with a referendum. And it really could be just a peak - but a fatal one for the Union. It's been presented as an election (words like 'campaign' back that up), when it isn't.

Would that be right? To break up the Union, for Scotland's voting majority to decide independence, on a 'mood of the moment'?

Thinking of it like this, those wanting independence have nothing to lose, everything to gain.

[pete]

I doubt it will be 20 years till the next referendum.

I agree. Should be ~30 years minimum.

The flaw with the notion of holding referendums on a relatively short frequency ad infinitum, is that chance is one day there may be an opinion peak that coincides with a referendum. And it really could be just a peak - but a fatal one for the Union. It's been presented as an election (words like 'campaign' back that up), when it isn't.

Would that be right? To break up the Union, for Scotland's voting majority to decide independence, on a 'mood of the moment'?

Thinking of it like this, those wanting independence have nothing to lose, everything to gain.

You can apply the same argument that this referendum just caught "the mood" and thus, if put off for another 30 years (or whatever), the same holds true. ie We should be independent were it not fo rhte mood on the day. (I'm not saying that's true by the way, just that it is possible to imagine a world in which it is true.)

The answer is not to ban referendums but make adjustments to the constitution or society such that most people are content most of the time. (And that doesn't mean that everyone is happy, just that they are no longer convinced beyond reasonable measure that independence is the answer).
For a lot of people that means what they perceive as a democratic imbalance needs to be addressed. I know there is a majority on here, and perhaps in Scotland that believes a democratic imbalance is best addressed by having some English MPs decide what is best for them but I suspect that not everyone would agree with that.

[jason]

^ my point being that if it's 'No'... "ah well, let's try for a 'Yes' again next year". Ad infinitum. If it's 'Yes' at any moment, even if it's after a dozen goes in 20 years... That's it. Done. The end.

It favours the side seeking change when reversal isn't possible. Nothing to lose.

[vet111s]

^ my point being that if it's 'No'... "ah well, let's try for a 'Yes' again next year". Ad infinitum. If it's 'Yes' at any moment, even if it's after a dozen goes in 20 years... That's it. Done. The end.

It favours the side seeking change when reversal isn't possible. Nothing to lose.

That only works if a nationalist party is in government in Edinburgh. The reason this came about is because at the last scottish election, in a system of partial proportional representation, we, the voting public, voted to place Alex Salmond and the snp in power. They were always going to force the independence issue. If one doesn't want the issue revisited then one needs to join the cause and campaign. At least this might put pay to the "my vote doesn't count therefore I'm not voting in protest" line. If we don't (as I do) wish to see the referendum question revisited at some point then the only ones who can prevent it are the electorate.

[Kelvin]

William Hague talking to Andrew Neil about the result. Most interesting bit is where they discuss the Barnett formula at 5:30.

Quite right too. Scotland can't have it every way. The Barnett formula was a temporary measure and is the cause of great resentment in England. It really ought to change in line with increased devolution.

[campbell]

In the spirit of fairness, I completely agree it should be reviewed.

[pete]

In the spirit of fairness, I completely agree it should be reviewed.

Do you? I mean Cameron said in December that a No vote would not lead to it being reviewed. Why do you think that less than 7 days after a no vote that pledge should be overturned?

[campbell]

Oh Pete, chill out.

I wasn't referring to the latest political posturing. Simply to the logical challenge of a temporary solution still in force decades later, as put by Kelvin.

Forgive me - what is your point here?

[pete]

^ my point being that if it's 'No'... "ah well, let's try for a 'Yes' again next year". Ad infinitum. If it's 'Yes' at any moment, even if it's after a dozen goes in 20 years... That's it. Done. The end.

It favours the side seeking change when reversal isn't possible. [\quote]

And my point is that we need change to ensure that the independence seeking side's concerns are addressed to such an extent that they stop seeking independence, recognising instead they can achieve the societal changes they desire within the existing frame work.


What do you propose?

Nothing to lose.

They have plenty to lose. The Yes side are just as mature, or immature, as the No side. They aren't likely to want a referendum every year anymore than you would.