Scottish Independence

[Saidur_Ali]

Sorry, then I shall re-phrase... voting on ANY law that they can subsequently choose not to implement in another part of the UK (be that NI, Wales or Scotland).

Ridiculous situation.

One upside of Scotland going independent is we're unlikely to ever see a Labour government again.

I was thinking that too, less chance of Labour government again and also hopefully less votes for UKIP too, the better it will be for UK. Do think though that Scotland will remain part of UK but if they don't, hopefully it won't be too big a crisis for both UK and Scotland although I personally think Scotland will be in big trouble financially if they do leave.

 

[jackargent]

David Cameron wanted a clear decision on independence but said on a visit to Edinburgh in February 2012 that, “when the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And, yes, that does mean considering what further powers could be devolved.” The emphasis then was only after the referendum. That only changed earlier this year as the three unionist parties produced their separate, and very different, proposals for more devolution. The second question was kept on the table during the negotiations by the SNP partly as a fall-back position and partly to keep up the pressure.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/scottish-independence-why-isnt-devo-max-on-the-ballot

The First Minister, who until now has confined his comments to saying he is open-minded about a second question, also said there was a "very attractive argument" for devo max.

The remarks, made recently in America, come amid growing speculation that Salmond intends to defy Westminster by including a second question about enhanced powers in the 2014 ballot.

Opinion polls consistently show more Scots support extra powers for Holyrood over independence.

Devo max offers Salmond a way to avoid defeat in a straight Yes-No referendum, as well as being a major stepping stone to independence.

Pro-Union parties say a second question is a desperate SNP fallback, which would muddy the issue of Scotland being in or out the UK, and could expose the referendum to legal challenge.

The UK Government, which wants a simple Yes-No on whether Scotland should leave the UK, has offered Edinburgh a new power, known as a Section 30 order, to make the referendum immune from legal challenge.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...right-to-second-question-on-devo-max.18013865

 

[Famine]

Oh man, that's priceless. Your own parliament says it's one thing (if they weren't, you'd have discussed the Scottish Parliament links I gave you), you say "common consensus" says it's another (so you must conclude that your parliament is lying to you) and then post links to media that you wouldn't trust if they were non-Scottish outlets that says Salmond intends to defy the Edinburgh Agreement he signed and the Electoral Commission's findings that the Scottish Parliament voted on and passed - so he's lying and trying avoiding the democratic process


Sounds like the perfect people to run a country.

Actually, literally. I guess what I said earlier about it being okay if they're liars so long as they have kinda the same accent was more accurate than I thought.

 

[jackargent]

Oh man, that's priceless. Your own parliament says it's one thing (if they weren't, you'd have discussed the Scottish Parliament links I gave you), you say "common consensus" says it's another (so you must conclude that your parliament is lying to you) and then post links to media that you wouldn't trust if they were non-Scottish outlets that says Salmond intends to defy the Edinburgh Agreement he signed and the Electoral Commission's findings that the Scottish Parliament voted on and passed - so he's lying and trying avoiding the democratic process


Sounds like the perfect people to run a country.

Actually, literally. I guess what I said earlier about it being okay if they're liars so long as they have kinda the same accent was more accurate than I thought.

I know you are not involved directly in the debate, but you demonstrate one of the problems inherent in both sides - the automatic rubbishing of the other side. I don't know how much or for how long you have followed the Scottish independence campaign. I live here. I have taken an interest in politics all my life. Trust me. David Cameron made a Yes/no question his red line - go google it - you will find that it was reported that way pretty much unanimously as a fact.

And the SNP did not contradict it.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

@jackargent You're obviously new to debating with Famine. He's given you plenty of evidence to back up his argument and you've given him "common consensus." He always knows what he's talking about. If I were you I'd call it quits, all you're doing is convincing me that the No side is clearly the only side that's thought anything through.

 

[Liquid]

But the links from your own government don't suggest that this was a Cameron forced question. It was mutually agreed upon.

 

[Famine]

I know you are not involved directly in the debate, but you demonstrate one of the problems inherent in both sides - the automatic rubbishing of the other side.

I don't have a side. Try again.

I don't know how much or for how long you have followed the Scottish independence campaign.

No, you don't, do you.

Trust me.

Why? You do have a side and you've presented zero evidence.

Meanwhile you've completely ignored the evidence I've posted from your own parliament's website that flat contradicts what you are saying. Which means either you believe your parliament is lying to you and yet you're still voting for them to take autonomous control of your nation or you can somehow reconcile the exact opposite of what you're saying with what you're saying...

David Cameron made a Yes/no question his red line - go google it - you will find that it was reported that way pretty much unanimously as a fact.

Would that be by one of the many UK news outlets you wouldn't trust if anything about the Yes campaign were reported? Oh, it's your claim - you go Google it. That's how claims work.

The Scottish Parliament website says the Edinburgh Agreement determined the framework of the single question, the Electoral Commission recommended a precise wording for the question and a single yes/no answer and your deputy first minister put that before the Scottish Parliament who then voted in favour of that question/answer. Not David Cameron.

If you're saying otherwise and can provide actual evidence, you are saying that the Scottish Parliament documents that I have posted links to are false and you can prove it.

And you want them to have control.


Best of luck!

 

[jackargent]

I don't have a side. Try again.No, you don't, do you.Why? You do have a side and you've presented zero evidence.

Meanwhile you've completely ignored the evidence I've posted from your own parliament's website that flat contradicts what you are saying. Which means either you believe your parliament is lying to you and yet you're still voting for them to take autonomous control of your nation or you can somehow reconcile the exact opposite of what you're saying with what you're saying...Would that be by one of the many UK news outlets you wouldn't trust if anything about the Yes campaign were reported? Oh, it's your claim - you go Google it. That's how claims work.

The Scottish Parliament website says the Edinburgh Agreement determined the framework of the single question, the Electoral Commission recommended a precise wording for the question and a single yes/no answer and your deputy first minister put that before the Scottish Parliament who then voted in favour of that question/answer. Not David Cameron.

If you're saying otherwise and can provide actual evidence, you are saying that the Scottish Parliament documents that I have posted links to are false and you can prove it.

And you want them to have control.


Best of luck!

loving the challenge here - apparently you are some mighty Titan of debate.

You may not have a side, but you appear to be taking one.

Sadly, you have not actually addressed the issue of the difference between the Edinburgh agreement and Electoral commission. Now on a technical point, neither of us can prove we are right because the nature of negotiations is that the parties do not always reveal their hands.

But I'll tell you what, you find me a couple of reports that suggests Salmond was pushing for a yes/no question & I might just give some credence to your argument .

Otherwise, I live here, I follow politics, I will gladly debate from dawn to dusk the rights or wrongs of independence & I will respect the views of those I debate with, but I won't be told I am factually wrong with nothing to back it up.

 

[Famine]

You may not have a side, but you appear to be taking one.

That's your problem, not mine.

Sadly, you have not actually addressed the issue of the difference between the Edinburgh agreement and Electoral commission.

Wrong.

Now on a technical point, neither of us can prove we are right because the nature of negotiations is that the parties do not always reveal their hands

I don't need to prove I'm right. I haven't made a claim that differs from the statements of the Scottish Parliament. You have. If you're now saying it's not something you can prove, I accept the retraction.

But I'll tell you what, you find me a couple of reports that suggests Salmond was pushing for a yes/no question & I might just give some credence to your argument.

I've not made the claim that he did, so why am I beholden to prove that he did in order to lend credence to my argument that the official statements of the Scottish Parliament do not back up a Cameron-pushed single either/or answer?

Otherwise, I live here, I follow politics, I will gladly debate from dawn to dusk the rights or wrongs of independence & I will respect the views of those I debate with, but I won't be told I am factually wrong with nothing to back it up.

You're factually wrong because you're making a claim you have just admitted you cannot back up counter to the official statements of the Scottish Parliament to which I have twice linked you.

And it's still amusing that you're making this claim - which requires you to believe that the Scottish Parliament liars - yet are wholeheartedly behind the Scottish Parliament taking autonomous control of Scotland.

As I said before:

I don't really get how being governed by an establishment of rich, lip-service Socialist Scots in Holyrood is in any way more meaningful than being governed by an establishment of rich, Tories (or, as is supposed after the next general election, lip-service Socialist) English in Westminster - particularly for Scots for whom Edinburgh is so far away it may as well be on Omicron Persei 8.

Is it okay to have a bunch of wasteful, lying charlatans in charge if their accents are quite like yours, but not if they're quite different?

The answer, it seems, is yes.

 

[justin credible]

If Scotland vote for it then it will happen, I don't know the ins and outs or truthfully anything about it as I don't watch news channels. I thought Scotland was a different country to England I have never understood that England and Scotland can have two independent football teams and seperates fa's yet when it is team GB Scotlands athletes are with Englands athletes

I think will it make any difference to me and my families life either way and as I don't think it will I hope the scots get what they wish for either way.

 

[jackargent]

That's your problem, not mine.Wrong.I don't need to prove I'm right. I haven't made a claim that differs from the statements of the Scottish Parliament. You have. If you're now saying it's not something you can prove, I accept the retraction.I've not made the claim that he did, so why am I beholden to prove that he did in order to lend credence to my argument that the official statements of the Scottish Parliament do not back up a Cameron-pushed single either/or answer?You're factually wrong because you're making a claim you have just admitted you cannot back up counter to the official statements of the Scottish Parliament to which I have twice linked you.

And it's still amusing that you're making this claim - which requires you to believe that the Scottish Parliament liars - yet are wholeheartedly behind the Scottish Parliament taking autonomous control of Scotland.

As I said before:
The answer, it seems, is yes.

You are a formidable debate Famine & I am flattered that I still in the ring with you.

you say "I don't need to prove I'm right. I haven't made a claim that differs from the statements of the Scottish Parliament."

well that's true because you haven't actually mad any claim. So just to be clear what I am saying is in the negotiations that led to the Edinburgh agreement. the SNP wanted a third option on the ballot paper but Cameron vetoed that and in exchange allowed the SNP to delay the date of the referendum, It is clearly impossible for the link you have poster to disprove that as it dates from months after the Edinburgh agreement was signed.

Now, bizarrely, you are not the first person I have got into this debate with and it's all over the terribly simple question of why we only have a Yes/no question. It's only important to me because it helped me decide to be a Yes after a lifetime opposed to independence. But much more crucially, if Scotland votes for independence on Thursday, it will be part of the inquest as to how on earth the no campaign lost it.

Just to clarify,as you seem to struggle with this point, there is a world of difference between accepting the result of a negotiation and what you went into that negotiation seeking.

 

[Famine]

well that's true because you haven't actually mad any claim. So just to be clear what I am saying is in the negotiations that led to the Edinburgh agreement. the SNP wanted a third option on the ballot paper but Cameron vetoed that and in exchange allowed the SNP to delay the date of the referendum, It is clearly impossible for the link you have poster to disprove that as it dates from months after the Edinburgh agreement was signed.

And you say you cannot prove this claim either. This means it is something without evidence that you believe to be true. That makes it a belief - and this changes any discussion from being reasoned debate to religious zealotry.

Ever tried discussing something rationally with a zealot? Is that what you want to be?

Is that how you want political discussions about the future of your country to go, with your politicians stating their beliefs, saying you can't disprove them and then pushing belief-based laws and bills through?

I believe that nuclear power isn't harmful in any way, so I've passed a bill to build a new nuclear power station in the centre of Glenrothes

If not, you might want to look a bit more closely at what Salmond has built his platform on - because an awful lot of it is the belief that if he says this is what will happen, it will happen because he said so, in the face of any existing legal or practical obstacles that literally preclude it.

Oddly, he doesn't seem to even comprehend the word "negotiation" - and your earlier links saying that he intends to disregard the political process and push for enhanced devolution in the event of a Yes failure seem to suggest he doesn't know the difference between accepting the result of a negotiation and what he went into the negotiation seeking...

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm not sure it's particularly important whether or not Cameron is mostly or partly responsible for the single question option - however, he has made some comments on the topic this morning that suggest that he was in favour of it, and the Guardian seem to think it was "his decision"...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...salmond-and-darling-interviewed-on-today-live

(Cameron) defended his decision not to have a third question, on further devolution, on the ballot paper. He said:

"For Scotland to have further devolution, you need to answer the prior question: ‘Do you want to stay in the United Kingdom, or separate off from the United Kingdom?’"

 

[Famine]

the Guardian

Biased UK media!

Still, at long last, someone is discussing the real issues behind independence... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-29206920

 

[Touring Mars]

Filed under "Maybe we should rephrase that":

Eddie Izzard, the comedian, has opened the Better Together rally in Scotland. He said saying no could be a positive act, if it involved rejecting a bad thing.

Alistair Darling has just come on stage.

 

[Roger the Horse]

UK media accuses UK media bias of being responsible for the failure of UK media bias. Also makes generalised ad hominem attacks against godwin's law invoking user's of strawman arguments. Probably. If so, the irony was ironic, otherwise it wasn't ironic and therefore possibly a great idea for a new blockbuster film.

I call UK media bias.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Hamilton's fault! (I wonder how nobody here wrote this before)

 

[TheCracker]

Hamilton's fault! (I wonder how nobody here wrote this before)

Hamilton must surely be Scottish with a name like that?

 

[Monatsende]

I`m very curious what will happen. Seems it will be a very close decision - in one way or the other. For sure London has underestimated the Scottish Independence movement and some politicians made fools / buttheads of themselves at the very end of the campaign. At least this is a success for the "YES" party.

 

[Brend]

Off to sample the atmosphere of the Glasgow during today's Yes rally, its amazing how one little decision has enlightened people to the inner working of politics and made people have an interest where previously there was none. Regardless of this result, I'm more proud of my nation that I have ever been and we will come out stronger, with or without independence!

 

[Omnis]

What do y'all think of what this guy has to say?

 

[jackargent]

Off to sample the atmosphere of the Glasgow during today's Yes rally, its amazing how one little decision has enlightened people to the inner working of politics and made people have an interest where previously there was none. Regardless of this result, I'm more proud of my nation that I have ever been and we will come out stronger, with or without independence!

Have fun

As an exiled Weegie, it looks like an amazing place over the past few days.

 

[Touring Mars]

What do y'all think of what this guy has to say?

I think the comments about the SNP are generally correct - I think independence could be an opportunity to do things radically differently in Scotland... but what Yes Scotland are proposing is very far from the stuff these guys are talking about. Yes Scotland, incidentally, is the SNP (centre/left-wing/socialist leaning), the Green Party (socialist) and Tommy Sheridan's Scottish Socialist Party (extreme left-wing socialists).

Typical attitudes and actual comments I have encountered from the Yes (pro-independence) campaign so far have included the following:

Create a 'fairer society' (reducing the gap between rich and poor) by increased wealth redistribution
Happy to be 'worse off' if it means less inequality (Patrick Harvie, Yes Scotland, Green Party MSP)
Protect spending on the National Health Service (our beloved socialised health care system)
Rid Scotland of the 'Tories' (Conservatives) forever (I have two leaflets that say exactly that)
Ditch the UK government because of the threat of UKIP (far right, libertarian-like attitude to free market economics)
Leave the UK because the UK is likely to leave the EU, and we must stay in the EU

 

[ExigeEvan]

Unleash the Kraken!

 

[Dennisch]

The Scots will be getting visitors from the Netherlands, Friesland actually, to see and learn about the independence voting.

Those silly Frisians would also like more autonomy for their patch of land.
Because with cows, sheep and ice skaters you can perfectly run the show yourself.

 

[Touring Mars]

Two new polls out tonight including the largest poll conducted so far (3000 people) give the No vote a slender lead at 52% - 48%, in common with three polls last night.

Another 'surprise' poll (don't know what they mean by that, but never mind) gives No a 6-pt lead (Survation) at 53-47%, or a 5-pt lead when Don't Knows are taken into account (48-43-9).

Summary of polls from today and yesterday:

17/9 - Survation - 53% NO 47% YES
17/9 - YouGov - 52% NO 48% YES
17/9 - Ipsos-Mori - 51% NO 49% YES
17/9 - Panelbase - 52% NO 48% YES
16/9 - Survation - 52% NO 48% YES
16/9 - Opinium - 52% NO 48% YES
16/9 - ICM - 52% NO 48% YES

Averages: 52% NO 48% YES

17/9 - Survation - 48% NO 43% YES 9% DK
17/9 - Ipsos-Mori - 49% NO 47% YES 5% DK
17/9 - Panelbase - 50% NO 45% YES 5% DK
16/9 - Survation - 48% NO 44% YES 8% DK
16/9 - Opinium - 49% NO 45% YES 6% DK
16/9 - ICM - 45% NO 41% YES 14% DK

Averages: 48.1% NO 44.1% YES 7.8% DK

Technically, it's still too close to call... NO with a 4% lead with ~8% still undecided, and a margin of error of +/- 3% means that it is still very possible that YES can pull off a surprise win tomorrow.

 

[jackargent]

predictions anyone?

I say

Yes: 53% No: 47%
turnout 84%

 

[Roger the Horse]

I say that it will be a 50:50 split with 146% turnout, leading to the division of Scotland into two equally sized parts, to be named "Little Britain", and "Gitofovmiland".

 

[Touring Mars]

predictions anyone?

My predictions:

Yes: 49.5% No: 50.5%

Turnout 85%

Final result declared on Friday afternoon due to recounts.

A few scuffles and alot of swearing and heavy drinking - and that's just Salmond and Sturgeon I'm talking about.

 

[Famine]

Bing predicts 48.1% Yes, 51.9% No.