Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 10:47:26 GMT -1
Scotland has indeed spoken and the vote was in favour of remaining with the Union.
The vast majority of Yes supporters that I know have spoken to accept that fact as they accepted that the democratic principle was at work and although they are disappointed, they’re living it with it because they have to. They also accept that they have a cause to pursue not because they can’t accept democratic decisions but because they know that democracy works by trying to persuade, cajole and proffer alternatives. Is this not what democracy is about? I don’t see another Referendum within a decade, perhaps longer and my reasons for this view are as follows: There is no wish to alienate the electorate of either side at this time by being a nation of constant referenda. Strategies have to be formed and the timing needs to be right and I believe part of the strategy will be to attempt to focus on the demographics of the ‘No’ voters and come up with strategies to persuade, cajole and proffer alternatives!
I also believe that it would not be in the best interests of the SNP never to have Independence on their manifestos but they may for strategic purposes ‘park’ it as a ‘future ambition’ but inevitably, I do believe there will be another referendum (perhaps not in my lifetime) but it will and must happen. I also believe that it is inevitable that Scotland will one day become Independent when that ‘one day’ will be requires a crystal ball but I am sure it will happen and it will be on the basis of a 51% majority or thereabouts. If you think about it with the 45% - the Yes campaign only required 6% to achieve that goal.
Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia….
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 11:22:29 GMT -1
I have no disagreement that independence supporters must and will continue to further their cause, nobody would expect anything else. I did not and would not argue that this should not happen. A sizeable amount, however, are understandably struggling to accept that, for the moment, the matter is settled. For the moment must surely mean at least decade but economic and social conditions could mean that the matter is indeed put to bed for a generation. Remember that the current austerity programme being followed and a deeply (in Scotland) unpopular UK government seen as elitist and out of touch, should have provided the most fertile ground possible for the nationalist campaign to have succeeded. It did not and it may be a long, long time until such favourable conditions exist again.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 11:40:34 GMT -1
" Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia " With respect this is part of the issue I am highlighting and perpetuates the patronising view that No voters were all duped by devious politicians. The visit of politicians to Scotland at the last minute and very late pledges of further devolved powers are not the reason that Scotland rejected independence. The margin of victory was far too great for that to have been the case. The campaign for independence fell short of convincing the majority of people in Scotland that their cause would bring substantial benefit to our country and thus failed in its aim.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 27, 2014 11:44:38 GMT -1
This is very simple in my eyes. Major constitutional change, in this case independence, requires a quite exceptional mandate from the electorate. Quite rightly this is achieved by the use of a single issue referendum. The matter at issue is seen as too fundamental to be parcelled up with the normal democratic process of electing a Scottish or UK Parliament. I heard no one arguing otherwise in the run up to the referendum and the fact that they now are speaks of their despair at the result and a feeling that the chance of independence has gone for a generation. Personally I don't subscribe to the "once in a generation" - firstly because a generation is rather difficult to define, then secondly because, having a referendum shouldn't negate another one, when the voters vote into office a government with that as a manifesto commitment. No doubt whatever a referendum subject is, that should be the case, even if its on a subject I personally don't agree with. As an example, a referendum held by the tories on leaving the EU if they win power in 2015, I don't want to leave the EU but if thats part of a manifesto promise they get elected on, well so be itTo now declare that a simple majority in the Scottish Parliament will allow the SNP to announce a UDI is dangerous and completely undemocratic. The danger comes form believing that if your cause fails then the way ahead is to unilaterally reinvent the rules and constitutional framework to assert yourself. The consequences of that are frightening to say the least and all of us should be very afraid of following that path. The undemocratic part is quite simple, a large majority of people living in Scotland have just rejected independence and if you choose to ignore that in your disappointment then you betray your democratic principles. Actually it isn't undemocratic in the slightest, if they, or any other government get elected on doing that - anyways that's not what Salmond said, what he actually was saying, was that he can see a time when an ongoing process from westminster of handing over powers to Scotland's parliament grants de facto independence and all it needs is a declaration really to say so - something akin as to what I believe happened with New ZealandWhy did the SNP win an outright majority at the last Scottish elections? Will it naturally be repeated at the next one? Different discussion with a large amount of variables to be taken into consideration but what I would say at this stage is that the economic and political landscape at the time of the last Scottish elections was such that even traditional Scottish Labour voters had had enough of new Labour and were prepared to voice their disquiet in a very large protest vote. The fact that the SNP made it clear that the independence issue was inextricably bound to a referendum made it easier for disaffected Labour voters to cast their protest vote. I accept that the political landscape has changed significantly since then and interesting times lie ahead, however, I'm certain that Nichola Sturgeon's SNP will not go into the next election without making it clear that there will be no UDI. To not do so would be political suicide and she isn't about to be so foolish. She may make a further independence referendum part of the SNP manifesto but I wouldn't be certain of that. She has a difficult balancing act to achieve for sure. People shouldn't be "frightened" by mention of such things as UDI - it's not the devil incarnate of politics and Scotland most certainly not Rhodesia of the 1960s. Your somewhat pejorative use of the abbreviation UDI makes it sound as if its something to be frightened of, quiet a few countries have declared UDI in recent times with recognition from other countries forthcoming - for example Kosovo which decalred UDI, was recognised by UK etc but not Spain and other EU countries for a variety of reasonsOn the other points made, Scotland is in a close partnership with the other countries in the UK and is not a previous colony of Britain, or comparable with any other country for that matter, which achieved independence. The comparison is not particularly valid in my opinion. Therefore if you want to go down the UDI route with a parliamentary majority being your mandate for independence then you should be fully prepared for the potential for that to be reversed if a pro union party then won an election. Therein lies the danger of acting in an unconstitutional manner and removing essential safeguards. To argue that re entry to the UK, in the UDI scenario, would also require the agreement of the rest of the UK is missing the point entirely. The fact is that you will have changed the rules and opened Pandora's box, allowing for any political persuasion to act in an arbitrary manner to further their cause. A h the old "unconstitutional" phrase, can you point me to the part of the UK's constitution that decrees all this? - A wee clue - there isn't one. This would also be the opportune time to point out that in Scotland and under Scots Law the people are sovereign, whilst in rUK under English Law parliament is sovereign. This differential has been held up in court as recently as the 1950s - Lord Cooper’s much-cited judgement in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) where he stated that “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”.
This can create an impasse in such constitutional matters - even the position of the monarch as "Queen of Scots" in Scotland is a different kettle of fish
Further more it is quite easy to quote Eire as an example of a former member of the United Kingdom who achieved independence - 1801 saw the Kingdom of Ireland united with the United Kingdom of Scotland & England ( Great Britain)
It's not a case of changing the rules to suit us, in reality under the sovereignity of the UK's parliament any referendum is only advisory and parliament must grant full legality ( as far as they're concerned) to each referendum. But there's nothing to stop any competent body ( like the Scottish Parliament holding a referendum on any subject whatsoever
To further argue that UDI this or that - when I have made no such claim, you brought up UDI, I've never mentioned it, then use that said UDI arguement to argue against what I've said is a bit disingenuous
Plus you seem to think its OK for teh rUK not to have a referendum at all to accept Scotland back in due to UDI - when again only you have mentioned UDI - you've setup the argument for UDI then argued against your own assumption? In all these considerations you cannot hide from the glaringly obvious truth. The referendum was won by a sizeable majority and to ignore that is folly. It doesn't suggest an appetite for a further poll in the medium term to me and once the dust settles, which it will, we will have a clearer picture of where our country goes from here. I know how disappointing it is when something you so fervently desired has not come to pass but that is democracy in action. It was a majority, but hardly sizeable - 55 - 45 is not sizeable as it only needs a swing of just over 5% ( 200,000 folk) to change it - a sizeable majority would be something like 75 - 25 or 70 - 30
You cannot extrapolate from that what the appetite for another referendum is, you might as well extrapolate that Morton will win the European Cup this season
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 27, 2014 11:47:21 GMT -1
" Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia " With respect this is part of the issue I am highlighting and perpetuates the patronising view that No voters were all duped by devious politicians. The visit of politicians to Scotland at the last minute and very late pledges of further devolved powers are not the reason that Scotland rejected independence. The margin of victory was far too great for that to have been the case. The campaign for independence fell short of convincing the majority of people in Scotland that their cause would bring substantial benefit to our country and thus failed in its aim. You make it sound as if teh margin of victory was huge - it was anything but, as G pointed out a swing of just 5% is all that's needed - in a few years demographics will sort that out
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 12:40:44 GMT -1
The majority was getting close to 400,000 people. In the context of the size of our country that is indeed a sizeable majority. I'll leave the percentage swings to you and Jon Snow, the plain fact is that over 2m people in Scotland weren't swayed by the nationalist arguments at a time when the economic and political climate was perfect for them to have succeeded. To say it only needed another 200,000 people to swing it in favour of Yes is really supporting my point. I believe that you can indeed extrapolate from the result that there is no further appetite for a further referendum in the medium term. Your analogy is totally lost on me and not because I don't understand Mortons standing in European football terms.
At no point did I mention what's left of the UK having or not having a referendum to allow an independent Scotland back in to the UK, you are attempting to deflect from the point. If you call for independence to be established through a majority in the Scottish Parliament then you must accept that the reverse is a possibility. Or would you enshrine Scotland's independence in your new written constitution to prevent the opposition doing exactly what you have just done? For someone who hasn't declared his out and out belief that UDI is a valid route, you are making a good fist at inferring it.
The constitution? Do you seriously believe that because it's called an unwritten constitution that we don't have a constitution? You bring up Royalty but this is a non issue in the event of independence, a head of state is merely a figurehead who can be a President, King, Queen or whatever. The decision to retain the Queen was political expediency on behalf of the SNP.
Just as Scotland is not Rhodesia it is certainly not comparable to Kosovo and the situation that existed in that country. If you think the use of UDI is meant to be pejorative you are mistaken, it is a convenient and well know acronym. Again what happen in Rhodesia has no bearing on modern day Scotland. With regards to Eire, my initial statement stands.
I'm glad you have interpreted for Alex Salmond as I totally misunderstood him to be a defeated and bitterly disappointed man who knew the end of his political career had come. The reality is he spoke out in haste and disgust at the result and left his successor in a very difficult position.
To lose on such a hugely important issue is devastating and I understand your frustrations as an ardent Yes campaigner. It's time now, however, to accept that the result was clear cut (even if you don't think it was a significant majority) and that we can't have regular referendums on this issue without damaging Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 12:48:45 GMT -1
" Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia " With respect this is part of the issue I am highlighting and perpetuates the patronising view that No voters were all duped by devious politicians. The visit of politicians to Scotland at the last minute and very late pledges of further devolved powers are not the reason that Scotland rejected independence. The margin of victory was far too great for that to have been the case. The campaign for independence fell short of convincing the majority of people in Scotland that their cause would bring substantial benefit to our country and thus failed in its aim. You make it sound as if teh margin of victory was huge - it was anything but, as G pointed out a swing of just 5% is all that's needed - in a few years demographics will sort that out It was certainly huge in terms of where the Yes campaign and pollsters believed the Yes vote to be, a belief which has added to the frustration and dare I say bitterness of many people in the aftermath of the referendum. Just how huge the differential was depends on your perspective, I think we'll just have to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 27, 2014 13:05:01 GMT -1
" Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia " With respect this is part of the issue I am highlighting and perpetuates the patronising view that No voters were all duped by devious politicians. The visit of politicians to Scotland at the last minute and very late pledges of further devolved powers are not the reason that Scotland rejected independence. The margin of victory was far too great for that to have been the case. The campaign for independence fell short of convincing the majority of people in Scotland that their cause would bring substantial benefit to our country and thus failed in its aim. You make it sound as if teh margin of victory was huge - it was anything but, as G pointed out a swing of just 5% is all that's needed - in a few years demographics will sort that out Demographics may or may not sort that out. People's political beliefs often change with their age and circumstances and the political views of the referendum voters may alter dramatically over the next 10/15 years. There are no guarantees to be taken from the demographics, in a future referendum every vote would have to fought over again. By both sides.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 27, 2014 20:08:40 GMT -1
Wow this thread has certainly become fascinating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 21:30:11 GMT -1
" Until then, we are part of the Union and we will pursue those promises made by the ‘great leaders’ who came North and promised us utopia " With respect this is part of the issue I am highlighting and perpetuates the patronising view that No voters were all duped by devious politicians. The visit of politicians to Scotland at the last minute and very late pledges of further devolved powers are not the reason that Scotland rejected independence. The margin of victory was far too great for that to have been the case. The campaign for independence fell short of convincing the majority of people in Scotland that their cause would bringth substantial benefit to our country and thus failed in its aim. Patronising in your view but without a shadow of doubt, there were many 'undecided' voters who had originally wanted the second question on Devo Max to be included (evidence at this time is only anecdotal due to I can't be 'ersed to go looking for it online but I'm sure many will) but it was not allowed. The promises made by the UK leaders did have an impact, it did have an effect and I know of a few (only a handful) who were swayed to vote 'No' and that is not undemocratic either - it's a choice. I will be the first to say, I doubt it affected the 200000 but even the political pundits couldn't predict how many were swayed by this. However, this debate has now went quite upmarket since your contributions and I welcome this as I am sure others do. This is the conversations we should have been having during the campaign but I would hope that you and others would agree with me on this issue - we've all become much more engaged and the success of this debate is if we can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 27, 2014 22:30:06 GMT -1
However, this debate has now went quite upmarket since your contributions and I welcome this as I am sure others do. This is the conversations we should have been having during the campaign but I would hope that you and others would agree with me on this issue - we've all become much more engaged and the success of this debate is if we can disagree without being disagreeable. Here Here well said Gilly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2014 23:17:23 GMT -1
The reverse side of what you feel is the view I've heard many independence supporters voice of No voters. Deceived by Westminster lies, lacking the confidence to go it alone, older people letting down the younger generation ( a fallacy later exposed by more detailed and accurate research)......... I could go on but suffice to say these are all insulting and wrong. If you want to break Scotland from the rest of the UK then you should have an outstanding economic argument for so doing and should have the confidence in the intelligence of the electorate to share it with them in detail. The SNP didn't have that argument and failed to persuade the likes of me that independence was desirable and beneficial. Their failure to do so is the reason we're still part of the UK. Your posts are detailed and lengthy so I'd like to reply in brief to specific ones. To be honest, Demo, I do believe that: 1) Many NO voters were deceived by Westminster lies. Some examples might be: "misleading" elderly people that their pensions would not be safe with independence, orchestrating a campaign by supermarkets to declare price rises with independence, continual scaremongering over the old 'the oil will only last 40 years' myth, the threats that border controls would be set up on the English side, and finally, and possibly more importantly a degree of brinksmanship over currency union. 2) lacking the confidence to go it alone. I think that's also true of some NO voters. Many people tend to fear change. The NO campaign know that simple psychological fact and hammered it home through the constant reinforcement, in every statement, of the words 'uncertainty' and 'risk'. 3) Older people letting down the younger generation. I wonder if you're using the Lord Ashcroft exit poll as your evidence here? It was a very small sample and runs counter to all the research done by the YES campaign and other neutral parties in the run up to last week's vote. The 65+ age group voted NO by about 70/30. There's also plenty anecdotal evidence that this group were frightened of losing their pensions and/or investments, while some had a different view of the Union through life experiences during and post-WW2. In your personal view you say: If you want to break Scotland from the rest of the UK then you should have an outstanding economic argument for so doing and should have the confidence in the intelligence of the electorate to share it with them in detail.To answer that: in my personal opinion, that is a narrow view of the rationale of independence. Even the NO campaign admitted time and time again that Scotland 'could' succeed economically as an independent country. We can't ignore, surely, that 45% of people voted YES in order to positively address the very serious inequalities in our society by finding fairer ways to distribute our wealth. 45% voted against Scotland hosting Trident. 45% voted against always getting a government we haven't voted for. 45% voted to preserve our NHS, under the considerable threat as we all know. 45% voted to control our own affairs rather than hand power to a remote government, none of whom have the interests of the Scottish people as their sole raison d'etre. Can I ask you, as a No voter, what is 'desirable and beneficial' to the people of Scotland by remaining in the Union? What part of Better Together's campaign convinced you?
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 28, 2014 0:30:56 GMT -1
I'll come back to your points over the coming week Rolo but I'd like to give you a short answer to your final point. Nothing in the Better Together campaign convinced me to vote No, it was one of the poorest political campaigns imaginable. Rather the failure of the independence campaign to persuade me that there were substantial benefits in being independent of the UK caused me to cast my vote in the negative. The onus, when trying to change the status quo, is to convince the electorate of the social and economic benefits of going it alone and breaking up a lengthy union. The Yes campaign played to their already substantial support instead of tryng to win over the doubters with detailed and convincing arguments. Bluntly they failed to achieve their aims through a mixture of political arrogance and a gross miscalculation of whom amongst the electorate they required to convince.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 28, 2014 7:59:34 GMT -1
I am surprised such a knowledgeable writer was not writing on here BEFORE the referendum, pity that. Also surprised you do not think the YES side had a large group before the vote? We went from around 28/29 per cent to over 45per cent, I would suggest that is a huge swing? Who amongst the electorate had to be convinced were ALL groups in my opinion. As a NO supporter it means you are supporting, Wars again, Bedroom tax, Taxing those claiming benefits, Allowing Multi Nationals to pay minimum wage, Charging for Education at Universities, Keeping the Eton Boys Club as the staus quo. I wish for a FAIRER society and you will NEVER have that with the red Labour or the Tories, in Scotland we must continue the fight and for anyone to think that the three stooges coming up and Bully Broon shouting and giving promises with NO CONTENT but lots and lots of fear will have a HUGE amount of Scots sit quietly and take whatever shit Westminster wants to drip feed us is living on another Planet.
|
|
|
Post by democrat on Sept 28, 2014 10:02:38 GMT -1
In the post previous to yours I referred to the already substantial support for the Yes campaign and it is obvious that to get to the stage of an independence referendum there has to be a large body of public support for such a vote to take place.
With respect I believe that your are missing the point when you cite the increase in support for independence during the campaign. The No side started off in the lead, maintained the lead throughout two years of campaigning and won the vote by a clear margin. Do you even have faith that the opinion polls provided an accurate picture of support for independence in the first place? After this referendum and by becoming more educated about the processes used by these polling companies, I'll never rely heavily on them again. The bookmakers seemed to have a much better grasp of what was going on in Scotland than YouGov.
I note your opinion of No voters and that you believe that they have allowed many social ills to perpetuate but the referendum has been run and there seems little point in re running the debate which has been settled for now. Your apparently deep seated contempt of the Westminster establishment is yours to harbour but I doubt you will have won over many people who were trying to decide the best way to vote by using such negative language. Equally your somewhat disparaging view of people who voted No will not further your cause in the future. You have categorised No voters as unaware and subservient to whatever Westminster graciously allows them to have, which is a gross miscalculation of the reasons that the Yes campaign ultimately failed.
Had a properly thought out and detailed economic plan been put together by the SNP, not a broad policy sheet lacking in proper substance, the referendum could have finished very differently. This was a campaign in which the onus was on the Yes camp to persuade on the advantages of change and they failed in that by some way. Highlighting the success of Scottish business and industry was not enough because after all this had been achieved within the framework of the UK. The areas where the yes vote prevailed were mostly areas of high unemployment and poverty and where people had very little to lose in terms of the economic risks of breaking with the UK. The UK government has failed these people and they were willing to support change (please note that I am not categorising all Yes voters as unemployed and living in poverty). However, what about the people who were not as disadvantaged, who had relatively comfortable lifestyles and had to be persuaded that an independent Scotland would improve on their current lifestyle. Nobody put forward a plausible explanation of how the inevitable economic disruption of separation from the UK would be managed, nobody assuaged the concerns of people who first and foremost wanted to maintain their hard worked for lifestyle. These are the people who had to be won over and no amount of Alex Salmond claiming it was all scaremongering was going to win them over without the details of how it would be achieved. The SNP were caught with their trousers down over the issue of currency and that they didn't see that issue coming was a major failure on their part. The patronising, dismissive language used by by Alex Salmond at every challenge left him with no middle ground support. He didn't have to convince the fervent independence supporters, he had to convince people who were waiting for a convincing economic case to be presented. My assertion is that it never came and that is the reason we do not have an independent Scotland.
|
|