This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
For something so important and irreversible as splitting up a country, the idea that the decision will be based upon a simple majority of those people who vote is ridiculous. Common sense surely suggests that it should be obvious to everyone that the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the country want it. And not just to some blinkered self serving politicians, of both sides. To have to count every single vote in order to work out the answer is insulting to everyone in UK. I will be very sad if Scotland votes to leave, but the demands and complaints are now starting to irritate.
1
In reply to m0unt41n:
How else would you suggest the decision is made?
We'll find out what the majority is and what it's in favour of in the next 40 hours or so.
> For something so important and irreversible as splitting up a country, the idea that the decision will be based upon a simple majority of those people who vote is ridiculous.
How else would you suggest the decision is made?
> Common sense surely suggests that it should be obvious to everyone that the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the country want it.
We'll find out what the majority is and what it's in favour of in the next 40 hours or so.
In reply to woolsack:
There are plenty of democratic processes that require a 2/3 majority or more in order to ratify the poll. The OP makes a good point.
If there were a million voters and one side won 500,001 to 499,999, you might as well just let one person decide. You could call them the king.
There are plenty of democratic processes that require a 2/3 majority or more in order to ratify the poll. The OP makes a good point.
If there were a million voters and one side won 500,001 to 499,999, you might as well just let one person decide. You could call them the king.
Post edited at 16:01
In reply to ByEek:
I was wondering earlier on, what's the Margin required for this? surely it couldn't come down to 1 vote, or could it?
I was wondering earlier on, what's the Margin required for this? surely it couldn't come down to 1 vote, or could it?
In reply to woolsack:
Well, for a start it's likely to affect me and my kids, possibly quite dramatically - and no one can say it won't - yet I don't get a vote at all.
Well, for a start it's likely to affect me and my kids, possibly quite dramatically - and no one can say it won't - yet I don't get a vote at all.
In reply to ByEek:
No he doesn't. He seems to be suggesting with we do away with the tedium of voting and just go by whatever might seem right to him.
> There are plenty of democratic processes that require a 2/3 majority or more in order to ratify the poll. The OP makes a good point.
No he doesn't. He seems to be suggesting with we do away with the tedium of voting and just go by whatever might seem right to him.
In reply to tony:
Things like the US constitution, the CofE and other bodies require 2/3 or similar majorities. It is quite common.
Things like the US constitution, the CofE and other bodies require 2/3 or similar majorities. It is quite common.
In reply to MG:
Which is a different point to the one the OP was making, which seemed to me to be suggesting we do away with this tedious voting thing.
> Things like the US constitution, the CofE and other bodies require 2/3 or similar majorities. It is quite common.
Which is a different point to the one the OP was making, which seemed to me to be suggesting we do away with this tedious voting thing.
In reply to Timmd:
Sorry, been busy. 2/3rds seems sensible to me.
I am irritated at the complaints being made by politicians justifying the split and others complaining about the unfair treatment Scotland gets.
It should be thought of as a family where you share everything for the common good.
Complaining you can do a bit better separately seems like a petulant teenager saying they would have a better life if they moved from home. But expecting the mother to still do the laundry and the meals since its not worth buying another cooker and washing machine.
Sorry, been busy. 2/3rds seems sensible to me.
I am irritated at the complaints being made by politicians justifying the split and others complaining about the unfair treatment Scotland gets.
It should be thought of as a family where you share everything for the common good.
Complaining you can do a bit better separately seems like a petulant teenager saying they would have a better life if they moved from home. But expecting the mother to still do the laundry and the meals since its not worth buying another cooker and washing machine.
In reply to MG:
Not in our political system - 50% + 1 is the default, and bear in mind we are unique in not having a written constitution (or at least a single document)
US constitution was only accepted after 2/3rd of the states accepted it, all subsequent changes have required the same. It's a matter of debate (quite heated amongst constitutional lawyers) whether Parliament could bind itself to a special provison required to pass or repeal any law.
> Things like the US constitution, the CofE and other bodies require 2/3 or similar majorities. It is quite common.
Not in our political system - 50% + 1 is the default, and bear in mind we are unique in not having a written constitution (or at least a single document)
US constitution was only accepted after 2/3rd of the states accepted it, all subsequent changes have required the same. It's a matter of debate (quite heated amongst constitutional lawyers) whether Parliament could bind itself to a special provison required to pass or repeal any law.
In reply to tony:
A big fight, no weapons, fists, heads and boots only.
> How else would you suggest the decision is made?
A big fight, no weapons, fists, heads and boots only.
In reply to woolsack:
It's crazy to use the same system which votes in Councillors and MPs who you can get rid of a few years later if needs be to make an irreversible decision on something so fundamental. The proportion of votes required should be an overwhelming demonstration, not an equal split plus 1.
It all seems a bit fishy.
It's crazy to use the same system which votes in Councillors and MPs who you can get rid of a few years later if needs be to make an irreversible decision on something so fundamental. The proportion of votes required should be an overwhelming demonstration, not an equal split plus 1.
It all seems a bit fishy.
In reply to m0unt41n:
Agree- it's absolutely bonkers. Anyone running a company will know that any major decision (changing the name, reducing share capital, amending the articles of association,changing its status- all the big decisions) require a 75% vote in favour.
Why so drastically altering the status of a country can be on a bare majority eludes me.
Agree- it's absolutely bonkers. Anyone running a company will know that any major decision (changing the name, reducing share capital, amending the articles of association,changing its status- all the big decisions) require a 75% vote in favour.
Why so drastically altering the status of a country can be on a bare majority eludes me.
In reply to m0unt41n:
The referendum was pushed by Cameron to put independence to bed for another generation, hence the no devo max, it has seriously backfired and will cost him his job.
Easy +60% YES
The referendum was pushed by Cameron to put independence to bed for another generation, hence the no devo max, it has seriously backfired and will cost him his job.
Easy +60% YES
In reply to m0unt41n:
The funny thing is.....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
36% of the vote with a 65% turnout.
We have un un representative prime minister not representing anyone, never mind Scotland.
The funny thing is.....
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
36% of the vote with a 65% turnout.
We have un un representative prime minister not representing anyone, never mind Scotland.
In reply to m0unt41n:
In France any change in the constitution (written) requires a 3/5* majority of an assembly of both chambers together - they have to go to the Versailles Palace to find a room big enough. Seems reasonable to me.
*sorry, just checked, and it's of valid votes cast.
In France any change in the constitution (written) requires a 3/5* majority of an assembly of both chambers together - they have to go to the Versailles Palace to find a room big enough. Seems reasonable to me.
*sorry, just checked, and it's of valid votes cast.
Post edited at 10:19
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
Yes that's an ordinary election which changes nothing in constitutional terms. Folk could easily get out of bed to vote if they wanted to.
Yes that's an ordinary election which changes nothing in constitutional terms. Folk could easily get out of bed to vote if they wanted to.
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
He represents the government, which has 59% support of the votes cast in the general election (probably a bit more if you include the Ulster parties).
He represents the government, which has 59% support of the votes cast in the general election (probably a bit more if you include the Ulster parties).
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
OR alternatively, change to the French constitution can be done through a referendum. Article 89.
It was used in 2000 to reduce the mandate of the President from seven years to five years.
> In France any change in the constitution (written) requires a 3/5* majority of an assembly of both chambers together - they have to go to the Versailles Palace to find a room big enough. Seems reasonable to me.
OR alternatively, change to the French constitution can be done through a referendum. Article 89.
It was used in 2000 to reduce the mandate of the President from seven years to five years.
In reply to m0unt41n:
Its only by leaving home that you ever grow up: staying at home, having your mother do the laundry, cook the dinners, put out the rubbish etc you will remain the teenager long after you've left your teens!
Healthy parents raise children to become their own people. So basically your analogy of Scotland the teenager moaning to the parental UK is cr*p.
(Who ever left home and still got dinners cooked? where the hell did you move too? the garden shed?)
Still not decided on how to vote!
Its only by leaving home that you ever grow up: staying at home, having your mother do the laundry, cook the dinners, put out the rubbish etc you will remain the teenager long after you've left your teens!
Healthy parents raise children to become their own people. So basically your analogy of Scotland the teenager moaning to the parental UK is cr*p.
(Who ever left home and still got dinners cooked? where the hell did you move too? the garden shed?)
Still not decided on how to vote!
In reply to RomTheBear:
Hardly on the same scale as breaking the country down the middle though, is it? I was just giving an example where a simple majority is not considered sufficient.
> OR alternatively, change to the French constitution can be done through a referendum. Article 89.
> It was used in 2000 to reduce the mandate of the President from seven years to five years.
Hardly on the same scale as breaking the country down the middle though, is it? I was just giving an example where a simple majority is not considered sufficient.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Well it happened in 1961 for the break up with Algeria, there was a simple majority referendum organised.
> Hardly on the same scale as breaking the country down the middle though, is it? I was just giving an example where a simple majority is not considered sufficient.
Well it happened in 1961 for the break up with Algeria, there was a simple majority referendum organised.
In reply to m0unt41n:
This nonsense experiment '40% rule' was trialled in Scotland in 1979 when theu voted on devolution. A majority of the votes cast were in favour, but Scotland was denied a Parliament for another 20 years.
This type of system has no role in any modern democracy. They have often been used by corrupt leaders to hold on to power. If you don't vote you have no say. And a simple majority should always be enough.
This referendum is the enactment of SNP's election pledge and has been approved by Westminster. The simple fact is that whether it's a narrow majority either way, it has legitimacy.
This nonsense experiment '40% rule' was trialled in Scotland in 1979 when theu voted on devolution. A majority of the votes cast were in favour, but Scotland was denied a Parliament for another 20 years.
This type of system has no role in any modern democracy. They have often been used by corrupt leaders to hold on to power. If you don't vote you have no say. And a simple majority should always be enough.
This referendum is the enactment of SNP's election pledge and has been approved by Westminster. The simple fact is that whether it's a narrow majority either way, it has legitimacy.
In reply to Cardi:
It's legal, that is not the same as having legitimacy in the eyes of the population.
Why should a simple majority 'always be enough'?
> This referendum is the enactment of SNP's election pledge and has been approved by Westminster. The simple fact is that whether it's a narrow majority either way, it has legitimacy.
It's legal, that is not the same as having legitimacy in the eyes of the population.
Why should a simple majority 'always be enough'?
In reply to m0unt41n:
No need for sorry. ()
> Sorry, been busy. 2/3rds seems sensible to me.
> I am irritated at the complaints being made by politicians justifying the split and others complaining about the unfair treatment Scotland gets.
> It should be thought of as a family where you share everything for the common good.
> Complaining you can do a bit better separately seems like a petulant teenager saying they would have a better life if they moved from home. But expecting the mother to still do the laundry and the meals since its not worth buying another cooker and washing machine.
No need for sorry. ()
In reply to Alex Slipchuk:
And what was the SNP share in 2011? 46% of a 50% turnout?
> The funny thing is.....
> 36% of the vote with a 65% turnout.
> We have un un representative prime minister not representing anyone, never mind Scotland.
And what was the SNP share in 2011? 46% of a 50% turnout?
In reply to woolsack:
How is it democracy in any sense for the rest of us? Splitting our country up where most of us who have paid taxes all our lives have less say than kids of 16?
How is it democracy in any sense for the rest of us? Splitting our country up where most of us who have paid taxes all our lives have less say than kids of 16?
In reply to wercat:
It is a union of two nations. You cannot force either of the nations to remain in the union against their will. That stops being a union and starts being an occupation.
What would you say if you held two referendums, one in Scotland and one in the rest of the UK. The Scottish one voted for independence, the rest of the UK against.
Would you force the Scottish nation to remain in the union? I could understand why terrorist separatist organisations emerge from that kind of situation.
You can't have a marriage with just one person wanting to be married (believe me - I know about this one).
It is a union of two nations. You cannot force either of the nations to remain in the union against their will. That stops being a union and starts being an occupation.
What would you say if you held two referendums, one in Scotland and one in the rest of the UK. The Scottish one voted for independence, the rest of the UK against.
Would you force the Scottish nation to remain in the union? I could understand why terrorist separatist organisations emerge from that kind of situation.
You can't have a marriage with just one person wanting to be married (believe me - I know about this one).
In reply to m0unt41n:
A man has been arrested over an alleged assault on a pro-union Scottish Labour councillor outside a polling station in Clydebank during the independence referendum.
Police Scotland said a 44-year-old man had been arrested in connection with an alleged assault. The suspect is understood to be a yes campaign supporter. He is expected to appear at Dumbarton sheriff court on Friday.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/18/man-arrested-assault-scotti...
A man has been arrested over an alleged assault on a pro-union Scottish Labour councillor outside a polling station in Clydebank during the independence referendum.
Police Scotland said a 44-year-old man had been arrested in connection with an alleged assault. The suspect is understood to be a yes campaign supporter. He is expected to appear at Dumbarton sheriff court on Friday.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/18/man-arrested-assault-scotti...
In reply to zebidee:
It was a Scottish king that built the Union, so there is nothing wrong with saying there's no going back.
Otherwise you're proposing that the Union should adapt to accommodate Scottish rule, then adapt to accommodate the Scots and then adapt to defend itself from terrorism!
This paints the Scots as the drunk crashing a party - if you ignore him he'll probably start a fight and if you talk to him it just brings him closer when he hits out.
> Would you force the Scottish nation to remain in the union? I could understand why terrorist separatist organisations emerge from that kind of situation.
It was a Scottish king that built the Union, so there is nothing wrong with saying there's no going back.
Otherwise you're proposing that the Union should adapt to accommodate Scottish rule, then adapt to accommodate the Scots and then adapt to defend itself from terrorism!
This paints the Scots as the drunk crashing a party - if you ignore him he'll probably start a fight and if you talk to him it just brings him closer when he hits out.
In reply to RomTheBear:
So you see a colony like Algeria, in Africa as being equivalent to the situation of Scotland in Britain? You really have had your mind twisted by ScotsNats!
> Well it happened in 1961 for the break up with Algeria, there was a simple majority referendum organised.
So you see a colony like Algeria, in Africa as being equivalent to the situation of Scotland in Britain? You really have had your mind twisted by ScotsNats!
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
No, I didn't say that, you're putting words into my mouth. You were asking for an example of when a simple majority referendum was used to break apart from a country, so I gave you one.
Now apart from that there is simply no other way to conduct this sort of polls.
If you put a 60/40 requirement for yes, then it means that those who can't vote or abstain are basically voting no. And if you have a 59%/41% vote then you end up with a large majority of people being ignored.
What would you say would be a good solution ?
> So you see a colony like Algeria, in Africa as being equivalent to the situation of Scotland in Britain? You really have had your mind twisted by ScotsNats!
No, I didn't say that, you're putting words into my mouth. You were asking for an example of when a simple majority referendum was used to break apart from a country, so I gave you one.
Now apart from that there is simply no other way to conduct this sort of polls.
If you put a 60/40 requirement for yes, then it means that those who can't vote or abstain are basically voting no. And if you have a 59%/41% vote then you end up with a large majority of people being ignored.
What would you say would be a good solution ?
Post edited at 19:57
In reply to Roddytoo:
Well the terms referendum were agreed by the prime minister and his government representing the whole of the UK.
Or are you saying that the Westminster system is not democratic ? That's a classic and overused yes campaign argument :-p
Well the terms referendum were agreed by the prime minister and his government representing the whole of the UK.
Or are you saying that the Westminster system is not democratic ? That's a classic and overused yes campaign argument :-p
Post edited at 20:36
In reply to RomTheBear:
Somewhere between 55 and 60% of voters would seem a minimum for me although I don't think things should be allowed to get that far, the problems that drive people to such a level of alienation should be looked at and solved beforehand.
Listening to the reasons given, apart from a few fanatics, most people seem to voting yes as a way of protesting against the politics of the government, a feeling their view aren't listened too, a feeling of injustice etc. It seems to be to a great extent that many are not voting for independence itself.
> What would you say would be a good solution ?
Somewhere between 55 and 60% of voters would seem a minimum for me although I don't think things should be allowed to get that far, the problems that drive people to such a level of alienation should be looked at and solved beforehand.
Listening to the reasons given, apart from a few fanatics, most people seem to voting yes as a way of protesting against the politics of the government, a feeling their view aren't listened too, a feeling of injustice etc. It seems to be to a great extent that many are not voting for independence itself.
Post edited at 21:43
In reply to zebidee:
I had a half hour discussion directly outside the polling station with the No campaigner on 'duty'. He is a business representative and very knowledgable, with influential contacts. ( He is also an old friend I had lost contact with when he retired from work)
I left the conversation rather reassured.
The first thing was I discovered was that he had wrestled with pros and cons on both sides, and went on to list them, very even handedly. He acknowledged what he saw as considerable advantages ( and challenges) that would follow even a Yes vote ( not what you would expect of a No voter, never mind a campaigner.)
He has come down on the No side, but was ready to throw his considerable knowledge and influence, into making a success of Scotland Yes or No, which he believes is very possible, but not his own preference.
We discussed market reactions, Trident( just up the road, CU, or no CU , other currency options and oil. Interestingly, I discovered that he had good contacts in the oil industry, and he was convinced from these contacts enough to acknowledge that Scotland's industry will continue to prosper, and in particular Oil will be there for many years more than has been stated by the No camp, and it was being largely underestimated/ underplayed, particularly West Coast Oil, that us expected to be significant, good quality, and accessible.
The rider is, this is in the future, relying improving technology that IS going to be able to exploit it economically, when, well perhaps, 10- 20 years time, but then for a long time after that, and of course there this not what more the expect to get out of End of life wells, that with technology will continue to yield far beyond previous predictions.
His actual comment was:-
" the story that oil was running out was a load of crap"
( he is usually rather more polite than this, and well spoken, so all the more surprising )
This ties in with our own family contacts in the Oil exploration side,( mostly abroad, but with local contacts) who has told his son my future SIL, that there will be a exciting future for him in oil when he finishes his Engineering degree, and in this gent's opinion, there is 100 years of oil left in Scotland alone , at what cost to exploit, and what price it is sold, is of course open to market fluctuations.
So, if true, this is the good news for everyone, no matter the result, as even if it is a Yes ( which looks unlikely) it is not in rUK's interests to have a weak / poor neighbour that does not trade widely with, and have significant funds to spend on that trade within any rUK.
I wonder then, if there are any on here that also in the oil industry, that can confirm (or refute ) these assertions? There has been some 'disagreements ' from the various experts, and as we know from history, and Dennis Healy, that oil resources were previously hugely understated, , but we all now need to know what figures are the more accurate, the lower, or higher estimates?
> It is a union of two nations. You cannot force either of the nations to remain in the union against their will. That stops being a union and starts being an occupation.
> You can't have a marriage with just one person wanting to be married (believe me - I know about this one).
I had a half hour discussion directly outside the polling station with the No campaigner on 'duty'. He is a business representative and very knowledgable, with influential contacts. ( He is also an old friend I had lost contact with when he retired from work)
I left the conversation rather reassured.
The first thing was I discovered was that he had wrestled with pros and cons on both sides, and went on to list them, very even handedly. He acknowledged what he saw as considerable advantages ( and challenges) that would follow even a Yes vote ( not what you would expect of a No voter, never mind a campaigner.)
He has come down on the No side, but was ready to throw his considerable knowledge and influence, into making a success of Scotland Yes or No, which he believes is very possible, but not his own preference.
We discussed market reactions, Trident( just up the road, CU, or no CU , other currency options and oil. Interestingly, I discovered that he had good contacts in the oil industry, and he was convinced from these contacts enough to acknowledge that Scotland's industry will continue to prosper, and in particular Oil will be there for many years more than has been stated by the No camp, and it was being largely underestimated/ underplayed, particularly West Coast Oil, that us expected to be significant, good quality, and accessible.
The rider is, this is in the future, relying improving technology that IS going to be able to exploit it economically, when, well perhaps, 10- 20 years time, but then for a long time after that, and of course there this not what more the expect to get out of End of life wells, that with technology will continue to yield far beyond previous predictions.
His actual comment was:-
" the story that oil was running out was a load of crap"
( he is usually rather more polite than this, and well spoken, so all the more surprising )
This ties in with our own family contacts in the Oil exploration side,( mostly abroad, but with local contacts) who has told his son my future SIL, that there will be a exciting future for him in oil when he finishes his Engineering degree, and in this gent's opinion, there is 100 years of oil left in Scotland alone , at what cost to exploit, and what price it is sold, is of course open to market fluctuations.
So, if true, this is the good news for everyone, no matter the result, as even if it is a Yes ( which looks unlikely) it is not in rUK's interests to have a weak / poor neighbour that does not trade widely with, and have significant funds to spend on that trade within any rUK.
I wonder then, if there are any on here that also in the oil industry, that can confirm (or refute ) these assertions? There has been some 'disagreements ' from the various experts, and as we know from history, and Dennis Healy, that oil resources were previously hugely understated, , but we all now need to know what figures are the more accurate, the lower, or higher estimates?
In reply to Roddytoo:
When 59m of the 64m probably would even bother to go and cast a vote, what happens then?
> When 4m out of 64m can vote, it is not democracy.
When 59m of the 64m probably would even bother to go and cast a vote, what happens then?
In reply to winhill:
Basing your argument upon it being one king or another which formed the union 300+ years ago is tenuous at best.
No. Not Scottish rule; the democratic choice of a nation of people to remove their country from a union which they may (we don't know what the result is yet) no longer want to be part of.
Like I said, what would you do? Force them to continue to be part of the union? Just how would you propose doing that? Can you genuinely not see why that might possibly antagonise the people who wanted to leave?
Do you not see why that kind of action could be considered by some as an occupation which could lead to civil disobedience and potentially worse?
> It was a Scottish king that built the Union, so there is nothing wrong with saying there's no going back.
Basing your argument upon it being one king or another which formed the union 300+ years ago is tenuous at best.
> Otherwise you're proposing that the Union should adapt to accommodate Scottish rule, then adapt to accommodate the Scots and then adapt to defend itself from terrorism!
No. Not Scottish rule; the democratic choice of a nation of people to remove their country from a union which they may (we don't know what the result is yet) no longer want to be part of.
Like I said, what would you do? Force them to continue to be part of the union? Just how would you propose doing that? Can you genuinely not see why that might possibly antagonise the people who wanted to leave?
Do you not see why that kind of action could be considered by some as an occupation which could lead to civil disobedience and potentially worse?
In reply to zebidee:
Not Scottish rule of Scotland, Scottish rule of the United Kingdom.
Scottish rule of the United Kingdom was a Scottish, Jacobean (and Stuart) obsession for 150 years. Scotland had little offer the Union but everything to gain and fought wars for control.
It wouldn't surprise me if it did but that is what Scotland is bringing to the party, war if they're in, then war, terrorism if they're not. And of course, it's all the fault of 'Westminster'.
It's interesting, Dave McLeod's reference to suicide and psychology, it seems people think the Scottish National Mentality needs sorting out. Now that hasn't happened are they going to be making any efforts to sort it out? Some sort of national counselling?
The violence and the victim culture and the oil makes it sound like the Middle East but without the nice bits.
> Basing your argument upon it being one king or another which formed the union 300+ years ago is tenuous at best.
> No. Not Scottish rule; the democratic choice of a nation of people to remove their country from a union which they may (we don't know what the result is yet) no longer want to be part of.
Not Scottish rule of Scotland, Scottish rule of the United Kingdom.
Scottish rule of the United Kingdom was a Scottish, Jacobean (and Stuart) obsession for 150 years. Scotland had little offer the Union but everything to gain and fought wars for control.
> Like I said, what would you do? Force them to continue to be part of the union? Just how would you propose doing that? Can you genuinely not see why that might possibly antagonise the people who wanted to leave?
> Do you not see why that kind of action could be considered by some as an occupation which could lead to civil disobedience and potentially worse?
It wouldn't surprise me if it did but that is what Scotland is bringing to the party, war if they're in, then war, terrorism if they're not. And of course, it's all the fault of 'Westminster'.
It's interesting, Dave McLeod's reference to suicide and psychology, it seems people think the Scottish National Mentality needs sorting out. Now that hasn't happened are they going to be making any efforts to sort it out? Some sort of national counselling?
The violence and the victim culture and the oil makes it sound like the Middle East but without the nice bits.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Well how would you address the problem that those who don;t/can't vote would be effectively voting no ? How would you deal with the anger of the majority of the population for voting on thing and getting the opposite ? It's just practical, and mostly used by dictatorships to bias things their way.
Maybe, but equally a lot of people find independence appealing as a concept but are not prepared to accept it if there is too much risk. It's what seems to transpire from the detail of the polls.
From the Lord Ashcroft poll, the main reason for voting YES is "The principle that all decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland" by 70%
The main reasons for voting No was by far the risks to the economy, EU and so on. Only 27% of No voters gave "A strong attachment to the UK and its shared history,culture and traditions" as their main reason to vote NO.
> Somewhere between 55 and 60% of voters would seem a minimum for me although I don't think things should be allowed to get that far, the problems that drive people to such a level of alienation should be looked at and solved beforehand.
Well how would you address the problem that those who don;t/can't vote would be effectively voting no ? How would you deal with the anger of the majority of the population for voting on thing and getting the opposite ? It's just practical, and mostly used by dictatorships to bias things their way.
> Listening to the reasons given, apart from a few fanatics, most people seem to voting yes as a way of protesting against the politics of the government, a feeling their view aren't listened too, a feeling of injustice etc. It seems to be to a great extent that many are not voting for independence itself.
Maybe, but equally a lot of people find independence appealing as a concept but are not prepared to accept it if there is too much risk. It's what seems to transpire from the detail of the polls.
From the Lord Ashcroft poll, the main reason for voting YES is "The principle that all decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland" by 70%
The main reasons for voting No was by far the risks to the economy, EU and so on. Only 27% of No voters gave "A strong attachment to the UK and its shared history,culture and traditions" as their main reason to vote NO.
In reply to RomTheBear:
So France and the USA are dictatorships? There's nothing dictatorial about requiring more a than a simple majority, especially when this is of votes cast, for questions which are considered to challenge basic concepts of a country.
Anyway it's done and dusted now, and with clearly much more than a simple majority in favour of keeping Scotland as part of GB so there's no problem.
> It's just practical, and mostly used by dictatorships to bias things their way.
So France and the USA are dictatorships? There's nothing dictatorial about requiring more a than a simple majority, especially when this is of votes cast, for questions which are considered to challenge basic concepts of a country.
Anyway it's done and dusted now, and with clearly much more than a simple majority in favour of keeping Scotland as part of GB so there's no problem.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...