Scotland at the crossroads [Archive] - Page 3

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 11:49 AM

Pretty decisive win for the 'Better Together' campaign in the end. Will the chances of and conditions for an independence vote ever be as ripe again? Much of the discontent has been seen as a reaction against "effing" Tory rule - Labour are favourites to win the next general UK election - and, of course, the separatist minority will be appeased now with those extra powers (assuming the unionist Westminster trio do deliver on their promises). That will surely de-radicalise its potential sting. Hardeep Singh Kohli of the 'Yes' campaign condemned the result as a victory for "Project Fear" and as representing a mandate for a continuation of the status quo. It would be very bad faith on the part of the Westminster trio to fail to deliver now.

Charlie Darwin

19/09/2014, 12:10 PM

Gather round

19/09/2014, 2:08 PM

Pretty decisive win for the 'Better Together' campaign in the end

Support for separation is now significantly higher in Scotland than NI! I'd hardly call that a decisive win for BT

Will the chances of and conditions for an independence vote ever be as ripe again?

Quite likely, yes. Six months of polls after the next GE, showing YES well above 50%, say?

Much of the discontent has been seen as a reaction against "effing" Tory rule - Labour are favourites to win the next general UK election - and, of course, the separatist minority will be appeased now with those extra powers (assuming the unionist Westminster trio do deliver on their promises). That will surely de-radicalise its potential sting

Labour share much of the coalition's 'austerity' programme. But it's a big assumption that they'd deliver if they win the next election. If, for example, the payback for more devo to Scotland is their Scottish MPs being excluded from English votes.

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 2:18 PM

They can hardly complain if Devo Max isn't delivered - they voted on a vague, non-binding commitment and if it's not delivered they don't have anyone to blame but themselves.

Certainly, and more fool them if so. In spite of the promise, presumably, any devo-max proposal will have to be approved by a majority in Westminster first? Is majority support even likely? Possibly not. It was a (vague, as you say) promise desperately bundled together at the last minute. And mightn't the other regions expect similar then, perhaps even regions within England? What might happen if the unionist parties fail to deliver? Interesting times...

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 2:34 PM

Support for separation is now significantly higher in Scotland than NI! I'd hardly call that a decisive win for BT

Hmm, maybe so. I guess what I meant was that the result was nowhere near as close as the recent inconclusive "49-51" opinion polls were predicting.

Quite likely, yes. Six months of polls after the next GE, showing YES well above 50%, say?

It remains to be seen. If the Conservatives are voted out and greater powers are granted to Holyrood, I can't see support for full independence increasing. It'll be what Samond originally wanted as one of the options on the ballot papers anyway. There's a sense that the question has now been out to bed for at least a decade or two now and Salmond did express acceptance of the democratic decision and urged unity within Scotland in his speech this morning. That would indicate he doesn't really see another referendum happening for the foreseeable future.

Labour share much of the coalition's 'austerity' programme. But it's a big assumption that they'd deliver if they win the next election. If, for example, the payback for more devo to Scotland is their Scottish MPs being excluded from English votes.

Fair point.

What inspired your change of position, by the way? Weren't you originally of the feeling that everyone in the present UK was better together? If you are supportive of Scotland's place outside of the UK, what about NI's? Could you ever come to accept NI leaving the UK?

osarusan

19/09/2014, 2:42 PM

It was a (vague, as you say) promise desperately bundled together at the last minute.
I wonder was it. They wouldn't put it on the ballot in the first place, which SNP wanted.

So now they get to present it at the 11th hour, offer vague promises instead of something made binding by referendum, destabilise the Yes campaign, and not allow the SNP to claim victory at the polls as they would have if devo max had been on the ballot and been the number one choice.

I think Salmond has been out-politicked, and he probably knew that's why devo max was off the ballot too.

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 2:59 PM

That's a good point. You may well be correct. Maybe it was the "break in case of emergency" option all along. The proposal only entered into the general debate when one of the YouGov opinion polls put "yes" ever-so-slightly ahead in an opinion poll last week.

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 4:01 PM

Interesting one, this, and, no doubt, coloured by a petty sense of diplomatic retaliation for western criticisms of Russian elections; Russia cries foul over this morning's counting procedures: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum

Russia has said the conduct of the Scottish referendum "did not meet international standards", with its observers complaining the count took place in rooms that were too big and that the procedure was badly flawed.

In an apparent attempt to mirror persistent western criticism of Russia's own elections, Igor Borisov � an accredited observer � said the poll failed to meet basic international norms.

Borisov and three other Russians arrived in Edinburgh on Wednesday evening, the state news agency Ria Novosti reported. The team from Moscow's Public Institute of Suffrage watched voting take place in the Scottish capital and the surrounding area. It also met with Scottish politicians, voters and representatives from non-governmental organisations, Ria said.

Borisov said he was unimpressed by what he saw. He said the room where he watched the count on Thursday night was a cavernous "aircraft hangar" next to an airfield. It was difficult to see what was going on, he said, adding: "The hangar is approximately 100m by 300m. There are tables, with voting papers stacked upon them, but the observers are stuck around the perimeter. Even if you want to, it's impossible to tell what's happening. It's also unclear where the boxes with ballot papers come from."

Borisov said the US state department, the UK and other western countries loudly hectored the Kremlin about Russia's supposed democratic deficiencies. But in this instance, he said, London and Edinburgh had not "fully met" the requirements of a proper referendum.

"Nobody was interested in who was bringing in the voting slips. There were no stamps or signatures as the bulletins were handed over," he said.

Meanwhile, a video of counting footage from Dundee doing the rounds is claiming the count was rigged:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUR-HgAtwtg&feature=youtu.be

Dundee's 'Yes' campaign did clarify that there was nothing to worry about, however:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx2p32OCYAEucgK.jpg:large

NeverFeltBetter

19/09/2014, 4:17 PM

Saw a lot of kneejerk RT's of similar stuff last night. People not realising all votes are counted up before being being sorted into results. That and claims that some people tried to vote twice in Glasgow. All a little desperate imo.

DannyInvincible

19/09/2014, 4:27 PM

That and claims that some people tried to vote twice in Glasgow. All a little desperate imo.

Haven't they heard of voting early and voting often?

Gather round

19/09/2014, 7:50 PM

What inspired your change of position, by the way? Weren't you originally of the feeling that everyone in the present UK was better together? If you are supportive of Scotland's place outside of the UK, what about NI's? Could you ever come to accept NI leaving the UK?

a) health the key issue for me. I don't fully trust the SNP but the obsessive Tory privatisers frighten me sh*tless

b) yes, usually/ previously housing's been the most important issue. Beyond football matches and karaoke/ open mike I'm not too bothered about flags and anthems etc.

c) I don't have any direct emotional/ financial interest in Scotland (never lived there, no family etc.). So it's up to the locals really

d) obviously there isn't a direct parallel, as Nationalists in NI don't want independence, and even if Unionists did the inherent instability means it's a non-starter

e) yes, as I've said here I accept the possibility however small of a UI. If, for example there's some combination of 'Orange Flight' to a small geographical area of suburban Belfast while at the same time Westminster imposes ever stricter financial cuts.

The Fly

20/09/2014, 12:39 AM

They can hardly complain if Devo Max isn't delivered - they voted on a vague, non-binding commitment and if it's not delivered they don't have anyone to blame but themselves. Nevertheless, I hope it works out for them.

Devo Max would give the Scottish government the power over most reserved matters except Defence and Foreign Affairs. That was never offered, so it won't be delivered.

The Fly

20/09/2014, 1:11 AM

Hmm, maybe so. I guess what I meant was that the result was nowhere near as close as the recent inconclusive "49-51" opinion polls were predicting.

I think when the days and weeks pass and the disappointment for the Yes campaign begins to settle they can reflect on a remarkable achievement. 10 or 15 years ago who would've thought that Scotland would even have a referendum on independence, let alone that 45% of the population would vote for it. The result is no endorsement of the Union. Indeed the most interesting thing to take from the result is that the Yes vote would've won had it not been for the over 60s. The support for No amongst OAPs almost trebled that for Yes, so the demographic edge is with independence.

In other words, the genie is out of the bottle and it ain't going back. In my view the only thing that can halt the further destabilisation and possible ending of the Union is a move to the full federalisation of the British state.

DannyInvincible

20/09/2014, 8:24 PM

e) yes, as I've said here I accept the possibility however small of a UI. If, for example there's some combination of 'Orange Flight' to a small geographical area of suburban Belfast while at the same time Westminster imposes ever stricter financial cuts.

Ha, you've already answered my follow-up-in-waiting; "If you can see a place for NI outside of the UK, could you envisage a place for it in a new all-island Irish state?"

What is the meaning of "'Orange Flight' to a small geographical area of suburban Belfast"? I'm afraid that reference has gone over my head. :o Does it refer to a possible situation where the unionist population has become a minority in such a way so as to lack the influence to prevent such a development?

Gather round

21/09/2014, 9:15 AM

What is the meaning of "'Orange Flight' to a small geographical area of suburban Belfast"? I'm afraid that reference has gone over my head. :o Does it refer to a possible situation where the unionist population has become a minority in such a way so as to lack the influence to prevent such a development?

Sorry, didn't explain it properly.

I mean, basically, the Unionist population in Ulster country falling significantly as older people die while the younger move to suburban Belfast, or England and beyond.

If there are basically no Prods in Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry beyond Coleraine, NI looks lopsided even if Nats can't manage 50%.

TheBoss

22/09/2014, 4:19 AM

Pretty decisive win for the 'Better Together' campaign in the end. Will the chances of and conditions for an independence vote ever be as ripe again?

I would not call it a decisive win but a very slim win, at the end of the day it was only a 5.3% difference. 190k swing votes were between them out of 3.6 million, and with 600k not voting, which I can't understand in a situation like this, those that did not vote, possibly held to key to a 'Yes' win. Just annoys me when every outlet says, the "Scottish people have decided", eh, not really.

I thought 85% was a reasonable turnout but thought it would be 90-95% due to historic nature of the referendum. Most independence referendums have turnouts in the high 90s.

On that result, Scotland is far more divided than Northern Ireland is. Based on history, this could be the start of something more troubling really. We have already seen Orange Order groups marching in celebration, essentially rubbing it in as they like to do, that can only spark off tension creating a very divisive society. In the next 10-20 years, the older generation that mostly voted 'No' will be dying off to put it simply, and with poor catholic families (mostly nationalist) tending to be larger than most other christian groups, most of which live in Glasgow, you feel then, the majority will favor independence, possibly leading to more hatred towards the "Westminster Parties".

Also, everyone seemed to ignore that yet another place that declared independence on the very day of the Scotland vote, Republic of Ilirida. :D

Gather round

22/09/2014, 7:08 AM

600k not voting, which I can't understand in a situation like this, those that did not vote, possibly held to key to a 'Yes' win. Just annoys me when every outlet says, the "Scottish people have decided", eh, not really

I thought 85% was a reasonable turnout but thought it would be 90-95% due to historic nature of the referendum. Most independence referendums have turnouts in the high 90s

Everyone had a vote, 85% used it. The equivalent when Montenegro split from Serbia was 86% btw.

This is definitely a positive. Of course there'll always be some that don't take,whether through apathy, anger,illiteracy, cynicism or whatever.

On that result, Scotland is far more divided than Northern Ireland is

NI is more politically volatile overall, but the relative proportions of Unionist and Nationalist are relatively constant. Nationalism in NI isn't progressing towards 50%+1 because it can't/ won't attract any floating voters.

with poor catholic families (mostly nationalist) tending to be larger than most other christian groups, most of which live in Glasgow

Do you have any evidence for this?

NeverFeltBetter

22/09/2014, 10:04 AM

I actually do think there should be a general quota for a referendum. Some of the turnouts in Ireland - most notably for the Seanad and Childrens Rights - are disgracefully low. But 85% is as good a turnout as you can reasonably expect, unless you introduce the compulsory voting model used in some countries (and I totally would, in a heartbeat).

Gather round

22/09/2014, 10:43 AM

But 85% is as good a turnout as you can reasonably expect, unless you introduce the compulsory voting model used in some countries (and I totally would, in a heartbeat)

Apart from being authoritarian, compulsory voting risks either high cost (if the fines for not bothering are to be collected, you need a big bureaucracy) or ridicule (people won't pay the fines, or vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck).

NeverFeltBetter

22/09/2014, 11:12 AM

Australia uses the system, with fines issued that not everyone ends up paying - I get the sense it is not something rigidly enforced to the letter, but is followed up on enough to worry people, not unlike the TV license system here. Certainly, the objections raised in Australia to the system rarely invoke the cost of maintaining it.

But they had 92% turnout for their last national election, with only 5% spoiling (and spoiling your vote is a perfectly valid option). With non-registered citizens thrown in, that's 80-85% of the electorate voting normally. That's a representative decision you can only dream of in this country. 33% turnout for something as big as children's rights or 40% of abolishing a whole section of the Oireachtas should not be acceptable.

Edit: This is just a pageantry of my mind though. There isn't a hope such a system would be applied here, not least because it would probably damage existing party interests.

gastric

22/09/2014, 11:17 AM

dahamsta

22/09/2014, 12:13 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx2p32OCYAEucgK.jpg:large

Yes Father Ted.

TheBoss

22/09/2014, 5:07 PM

Do you have any evidence for this?

Would have thought this was common knowledge, but here some info:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland

Gather round

22/09/2014, 5:38 PM

Would have thought this was common knowledge, but here some info:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland

Thanks for that. I hadn't realised that Catholic numbers had remained constant across Scotland between 2001-11, while those for the Kirk declined markedly.

Incidentally, also from the 2011 Census- The average household size in Scotland was 2.19 people per household and ranged from 2.02 in Glasgow City to 2.42 in East Renfrewshire :dazed:

DannyInvincible

29/09/2014, 9:53 PM

Interestingly, the Belfast Telegraph has been reporting that a survey they've conducted with LucidTalk of 1,089 people indicates that close to a majority of people in the north want to see an Irish border poll: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-says-yes-to-a-border-poll-but-a-firm-no-to-united-ireland-30622987.html

http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/incoming/article30623615.ece/9bba3/ALTERNATES/w620/poll1.jpg

Gather round

30/09/2014, 6:11 AM

Interestingly, the Belfast Telegraph has been reporting that a survey they've conducted with LucidTalk of 1,089 people indicates that close to a majority of people in the north want to see an Irish border poll:

Alternatively, there's an effective border poll ; the YES camp always lose; more than half of respondents think another would be largely pointless :)

Of course SF want some spectacular succes to mark 1916, or say they do: but an effort to win over a few Unionist floating voters would be more relevant. At the moment (and for 90 years past) there obviously aren't any, the main difference from Scotland.

jinxy lilywhite

05/10/2014, 12:36 AM

In all fairness who says that the south would want to incorporate the north.

Personally speaking it's a basket case,

Gather round

05/10/2014, 11:10 AM

In all fairness who says that the south would want to incorporate the north.

Personally speaking it's a basket case

They're both arguably 'basket-cases' economically. The similarities (high unemployment, resulting emigration, wastage on a property bubble instead of lasting infrastructure) are even more striking than the South's unique blend of very high wages and prices and corporate taxes that allegedly tend to zero for many firms.

The trouble is that while every Government decision since 1925 shows clearly that the South wants to maintain and secure rather than end partition, the pull of the sentimental foundation myth is just too strong.

Even if NI was as economically dynamic as Hong Kong or Singapore, a united Ireland would mean a small country taking on an extra 40% population, at least a large minority of whom would be disaffected. Possibly to the point where significant violence would resume.

Not going to happen. Just isn't worth your while.

NeverFeltBetter

05/10/2014, 11:34 AM

Even if NI was as economically dynamic as Hong Kong or Singapore, a united Ireland would mean a small country taking on an extra 40% population, at least a large minority of whom would be disaffected. Possibly to the point where significant violence would resume.

Not going to happen. Just isn't worth your while.

This is one of the reasons why I can't see myself voting for unification if a vote was put to the people anytime in the next few decades. The opportunity it would mean for radicalised and violent political action to resume in the north, and to spread to the south, would be immense.

Charlie Darwin

05/10/2014, 12:07 PM

a united Ireland would mean a small country taking on an extra 40% population
There's not that many of you lads.

DannyInvincible

05/10/2014, 12:14 PM

GR has his maths right; 40 per cent of 4.56 million (the present population of the south) equals 1.8 million, which is the present population of the north.

Charlie Darwin

05/10/2014, 12:21 PM

Ah, you're right, I was taking it as a fraction of the entire island.

DannyInvincible

05/10/2014, 12:37 PM

Even if NI was as economically dynamic as Hong Kong or Singapore, a united Ireland would mean a small country taking on an extra 40% population, at least a large minority of whom would be disaffected. Possibly to the point where significant violence would resume.

Not going to happen. Just isn't worth your while.

Who knows? Perhaps the potentially disaffected would have, like yourself, seen the light and converted away from gloomy cuts-obsessed British dystopia and to civic Irish republicanism by then... :p

Gather round

05/10/2014, 3:12 PM

This is one of the reasons why I can't see myself voting for unification if a vote was put to the people anytime in the next few decades. The opportunity it would mean for radicalised and violent political action to resume in the north, and to spread to the south, would be immense

The South's governments from the 70s to 90s managed more or less to contain the conflict in NI. Their successors may not be so confident in future.

Who knows? Perhaps the potentially disaffected would have, like yourself, seen the light and converted away from gloomy cuts-obsessed British dystopia and to civic Irish republicanism by then...

Heh, if only. To repeat the point above, in many/most respects the two dystopias are basically identical.

BonnieShels

10/10/2014, 7:12 AM

I'm sure the Scottish people who voted against independence are pretty happy with their choice now that we have a Ukiper in Westminster
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/10/ukip-wins-clacton-first-parliamentary-seat-douglas-carswell

Oh lord.

TheBoss

18/11/2014, 4:19 AM

We all knew that the Labour vote would be affected by their disastrous campaign for the union, but this poll would suggest that they could lose almost 85% of their seats in Scotland!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/poll-bombshell-ed-milliband-shows-4646014

BonnieShels

18/11/2014, 8:33 AM

Gather round

18/11/2014, 5:06 PM

It's great. delighted now.

SNP are now bigger in Scotland than the LibDems are. Will the BBC et al be able to keep them out of the GE debates? Hardly makes sense that UKIP are gonna be involved and the SNP are left out

In a UK General Election, the SNP (like the Welsh and Irish nationalist parties, and the DUP) are effectively regional. UKIP (and the Greens) are national. UKIP also won our national EuroParl election earlier this year.

The debates may not actually happen, most likely because Cameron doesn't want either Farage or Clegg on the panel.

BonnieShels

19/11/2014, 9:30 AM

I know how it works Sheesh.

I'm merely pointing out the incongruity of the 3rd largest British party being denied access to a debate for apparent regionalism.

You could argue that UKIP are regional as well, their one MLA and with yesterday's defection in the north they have 4 councillors as well. Whoop dee doo.

In a GE, could they get a seat? Unlikely.

So forgetting about Cameron having the debate or not for starters, in the event of a debate happening should the 3rd largest party in Britain be omitted? No they shouldn't.

Gather round

19/11/2014, 4:20 PM

Of the 591 seats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the SNP are going to contest zero. That's why they aren't going to be in a national debate screened mainly in those places.

There's no incongruity. The fourth biggest party in Parliament (DUP) will be excluded for the same reason.

UKIP are national. In the last national election (Euros in May) they contested every seat in this country, unlike Labour and the Lib Dems.

Ridiculing them for modest support in NI is a bit pointless. Almost every hack in each of the four Unionist parties would be at home in UKIP.

Are you suggesting that UKIP will get no seats at all, anywhere in Britain, in 2015? Unlikely. They have a chance with a charismatic or well-known candidate (Farage himself, or Doug Carswell who won a recent by-election), or where there's a lot of recent immigration from eastern Europe, or in my own area where there's been an organised hard-right set-up since the 60s.

As for SNP, there'll be televised debates in Edinburgh, which they'll dominate, and they're happy enough with that. The rest is just froth.

You know how it works now :D

BonnieShels

19/11/2014, 6:48 PM

I never stated that UKIP won't get seats. They will. In England. The SNP will end up with more seats than them and will therefore be a bigger party than them.

Every seat (in theory) in Westminster has the same value as each other so by that reckoning the SNP SHOULD be involved in the debates.

Also, standing for EVERY seat means nothing on the face of it. Remember Libertas, they were great craic.

davey

19/11/2014, 7:49 PM

The Greens compete nationally, they have an MP - Why shouldn't they get a platform? The TV stations want to reduce the amount of candidates purely on what they view will make good TV. They'd love to include Farage purely because he does. All of this has little to do with democracy of course. I personally don't like the leader debates as they turn the election into some sort of Presidential stand off.
The 2015 UK election is going to be truly fascinating. How many seats will Labour lose in Scotland? No-one knows. Scotland has had a habit of voting SNP in Holyrood elections whilst switching to Labour for General Elections. Has the referendum changed all that? I think it has. I'm not sure that UKIP will take that many seats under the FPTP system. If they take less than 20, then that surely hands the election to the Tories unless Labour makes major inroads in England. That seems unlikely at the moment. Labour could make some hay in England at the expense of the Lib Dems of course but I don't see that being enough. If anyone is interested, the bookies are currently saying this
Labour majority 11-4
Conservative majority 4-1
Conservative Lib Dem Coalition 4-1
Labour Lib Dem Coalition 4-1
Conservative minority government 6-1
Labour minority government 13-2
Labour SNP coalition 10-1
Conservative UKIP coalition 20-1
Labour UKIP coalition 100-1

Source - Paddy Power as of today

Personally wouldn't bet on a Labour majority for the reasons I've given. It is amazing to see so many options being given by a bookie on a UK general election under FPTP. Interestingly they are not offering odds on a Conservative - SNP coaltion!!

bennocelt

19/11/2014, 9:34 PM

Labour majority 11-4
Conservative majority 4-1
Conservative Lib Dem Coalition 4-1
Labour Lib Dem Coalition 4-1
Conservative minority government 6-1
Labour minority government 13-2
Labour SNP coalition 10-1
Conservative UKIP coalition 20-1
Labour UKIP coalition 100-1

Source - Paddy Power as of today

Personally wouldn't bet on a Labour majority for the reasons I've given. It is amazing to see so many options being given by a bookie on a UK general election under FPTP. Interestingly they are not offering odds on a Conservative - SNP coaltion!!

Now your talking my language, some betting.:D
PP can be a bit hit and miss regards elections, this shows they have no idea really. No way a majority by any party, but as to the colour of the minority gov, no idea.

Gather round

20/11/2014, 10:53 AM

Every seat (in theory) in Westminster has the same value as each other so by that reckoning the SNP SHOULD be involved in the debates

So do you think the DUP should be there too, but not UKIP, if there's room for only five candidates round the table?

Also, standing for EVERY seat means nothing on the face of it. Remember Libertas, they were great craic

Disagree, it's pretty important in a FPTP system. The Tories haven't won a seat in Liverpol, Manchester or Sheffield for years, but they'll contest all of them in the GE. Ditto Labour in Surrey, Dorset etc. They'd be ridiculed if they didn't.

In the special circumstances of NI, UKIP and the Tories get some small credit for at least making the effort.

I agree largely with Davey. The stats from Paddy Power summarised: 54% chance of Labour leading the Government, 46% Conservative.

PS Most LibDem MPs in England have a) well over 40% of the vote (details available on request) and b) the Tories as their main challenger. It's not impossible that Clegg's crowd might hold many or even most of them.