Scotland at the crossroads

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Boss

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

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.

---

You're right Never and Aussies accept the system. But for me, democracy is about having the right to not vote if you so wish, something Aussies don't accept!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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

---

Yes Father Ted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Do you have any evidence for this?

---

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

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...tland.23704996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheBoss

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

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...tland.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:

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/ne...-30622987.html

http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/i...w620/poll1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

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.

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

Personally speaking it's a basket case,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

a united Ireland would mean a small country taking on an extra 40% population

---

There's not that many of you lads.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Never Felt better

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny invincible

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.

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/...uglas-carswell

Oh lord.