Scotland Votes No To Independence 474
An anonymous reader sends this news from the BBC:
Scotland voters decided to remain part of the United Kingdom on Friday, rejecting independence in a historic referendum. The decision prevented a rupture of a 307-year union with England, bringing a huge sigh of relief to the British political establishment. Scots voted 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent against independence in a vote that saw an unprecedented turnout. "Like millions of other people, I am delighted," Prime Minister David Cameron said in a speech outside 10 Downing Street on Friday morning. "It would have broken my heart to see our United Kingdom come to an end." Cameron promised new powers for Scotland in the wake of the vote, but also warned that millions of voices in England must also be heard, calling for a "balanced settlement" that would deliver more power to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone seems to have lost here. The Scottish will get screwed when the politicians renege on all the promises they made, and the rUK will get screwed when the politicians half deliver those promises at their expense. The question won't go away and will come back round in 15-20 years. The UK will as a whole remain very conservative and averse to change.
I'm not Scottish but I feel very sad today.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
15-20 years should be enough for England to divest itself sufficiently from Scotland so when they vote for independence next time, it will not matter.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, and aliens could land too, and there will be nuclear war, and the world will end also!
Oh wait, you were being serious? You used the words "the way things are going" but that's not actually the way things are going. Based on current trajectories the UK is showing the healthiest growth of just about all rich Western economies and it's doing so whilst maintaining a reduction in deficit too.
Further, a number of studies suggest it's likely to see itself increase in global rankings overtaking France, and maybe even Germany in the next 20 years:
http://www.theguardian.com/bus... [theguardian.com]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi... [bbc.co.uk]
So yeah, you may be right, maybe something drastic will happen and things will go into reverse again, but that's not what the current figures suggest so any such possibility is merely unfounded speculation.
Yeah, sure, Scotland could've chosen not to be part of that and that would've been their decision, but I think most Scots saw through the nationalist pessimism towards the UK and recognised that for all our faults, maybe things aren't so bad - we're growing faster than anyone else in the G7 and seeing drastic declines in unemployment to boot - find me a country without political issues, but as far as ours go they're pretty small fry compared to some of the issues some countries are having, we've been growing well for well over a year now and some of our neighbours are still slipping in and out of recession - right now and for the foreseeable future the UK is still a pretty good place to be.
Faster political change would be nice, many people think it's not happening at all, but it is. In recent years we've seen things like the exposure of the expenses scandal, we've seen the closeness of phone hacking and the political classes, we've seen an alternative voting system referendum that was lost, exposure of sexual abuse in parliament, we've seen a coalition for the first time in 60 years- now many people will view all these things are negatives, things that ended badly, didn't turn out well, but they're not, they're all part of a bigger picture- the tide is turning against entrenched Westminster, in the last 50 years most of those things listed above would've been unthinkable, the fact they're happening is evidence that the vested minorities that've had so much power for so long in Westminster are losing their grip. I'm normally a cynical, pessimistic person myself, but since I started to take a step back on this issue and piece it all together, rather than look at individual events in isolation, as well as looking at the wider world in general (i.e. the arab spring) it seems pretty clear that politicians are losing power to the people as part of a long slow, probably multi-decade process - it's slow but it's happening, and I'm optimistic that Westminster cannot and will not be able to carry on with business as usual for much longer- they're already faltering and I fully suspect that this independence referendum is another nail in the coffin for the old way of doing things.
God only knows I've hated my country long enough and thought about leaving enough times (thankfully I can easily obtain dual citizenship through my partner, or just make use of our EU membership to fuck off elsewhere in the EU) but right now I think the signs are good, I think change is happening, it's painfully slow but I'm not convinced this is something that you can fix overnight, I think it takes almost a generational change in politicians (which might explain why there has been some progress already- I believe last election that far more than half the MPs that were elected were completely new) but it's happening, and we're getting there.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
Healthy growth? Wages plummeting, zero-hours contracts proliferating, real jobs replaced by involuntary 'self employment', debts soaring, bailiffs doing record business, food banks struggling to keep up with demand. If this is healthy growth I'd love to know what you consider unhealthy.
GDP is only of real relevance to economists and politicians. Ireland has a high GDP but its people still have to mass-emigrate because there is no work there.
Re: (Score:3)
The way things are going? I thought the UK already was bankrupt, socially and racially divided and a shadow of its former glory.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll make you a thirty-year thousand-dollar bet that that doesn't happen. I'll give you 3:2 odds, even. Seriously, put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
No previous independence referendum (Score:4, Informative)
There has never been a referendum on independence in Scotland before. There were two referendums on devolution: the one in 1979 was narrowly in favour but failed because it did not reach the required 40% of the electorate, and the one in 1997 succeeded, establishing the Scottish Parliament.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they renege, other than in some fantasy you've invented? Westminster has already set out the timeline for the new Scotland Bill to be written and presented to Parliament.
As for the rUK "losing" the only logical conclusion is for a federalised Union, where England gains it's own parliament and everyone, including Wales & Northern Ireland, get a similar set of devolved powers. That's both fair, a positive outcome for everyone in the UK, and neatly solved the West Lothian Question (because all sitting Westminster MP's become federal MP's, only dealing with federal issues).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's probably an American who thinks Mel Gibson makes documentaries.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Insightful)
The Scottish will get screwed when the politicians renege on all the promises they made
Why would they renege,
I'm sorry, are you asking why a politician would lie?
Re: (Score:3)
Right and who pays for all that government? The tax payers do. Smart people want government consolidation that reduces taxes not increases them.
The only good thing about more government is that they spend more time fighting over who does what which slows down everything. Yes slow governments are a good thing.
It is the big issues in the USA. We have something like 500 different sales tax rates paid to just as many different agencies all of which need funding to take our money.
Some things you want separat
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they renege, other than in some fantasy you've invented? Westminster has already set out the timeline for the new Scotland Bill to be written and presented to Parliament.
What makes you think Parliament will go along with the Prime Minister's promises?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they renege? Because they can, because they haven't yet delivered, because there is now nothing forcing them to deliver, and because they historically misrepresent both what they promised previously and what they are actually doing.
Don't believe an aggressive negotiator unless you are inspecting their actual deliverables.
Re: (Score:3)
If Scotland gets an even larger share of the tax pot than it already does while Scottish MPs continue to vote for tuition fees, prescription charges and austerity in England, expect riots.
The country is changing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it was all vague promises about more money and other favours, which can easily be backed out of. They threw them in at the last moment when it looked like the vote might be yes.
The Tories and Lib Dems hardly have a good track record on delivering promises, especially for Scotland. Besides which the government might change before they happen, in which case the new lot won't want to commit to expensive promises made by the last lot.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not Scotland that'll keep them in line, it's Northern Ireland and Wales. If they renege, then perhaps there won't be another Scottish referendum to worry about, but it'd certainly fire up the seperatist movements in the rest of the union. The only way to avoid that is to both keep their promises to the Scots, and to make similar offers to the other nations.
Federalism's coming.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, experience up here in Kanuckistan seems to indicate that everyone will win (if by "everyone" we mean everyone who isn't a politician or a dyed-in-the-wool separatist).
We've had two referendums, and they proved one thing - change IS possible. The separatist movement here has burned itself out, the generation who were pushing for it being seen as burned-out old farts. Go back to the UK in 40 years and tell me that everyone lost.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I read of the demographics, it's mainly the younger generation of Scots that supported separation. They're pretty much at the stage of Quebec in the 70's.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with relying for support for separation from the younger generation, as Quebec separatists found out, is that the younger generation gets jobs, gets invested in the status quo, and then think "separatists - they're just young punks who don't know anything about real life."
And the next "younger generation" sees separation as something for old farts. Uncool.
The reality is that there's more people in the RoC (Rest of Canada) who would vote to kick Quebec out than there are Quebecers willing to pull the trigger on separation. You can only make a "knife to the throat" threat so many times before the other party says "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes. It still takes at least a generation for them to work it out of their system. 40 years might do it, but seeing where we are now in Canada I think it's going to take another 20 or so before we can really feel comfortable that separation is truly dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Kanuckistan? That's Canada, right?
Canada isn't a country. It became mostly a country in the 1980s but in my not-so-humble opinion, no country is a real country if they use the leader of some other country as their head of state.
You are a subject of the Brits so long as you put the Queen on your money and let her roll around in your lands acting as though she owns the place -- which she does.
By a thread, Canada isn't a country. Cut that last thread and you can finally be a real country.
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in the US for a decade now, I'm missing the UK more and more.
- A real non-half-assed health service, that provides long-term care without exception
- A dearth of mass-murders, especially school-shootings
- A police service which uses policing-by-consent rather than by-fear
- A university system that doesn't do its best to keep you in debt for life
- A foreign policy that doesn't make them hated around the world
- An attitude that doesn't revolve around "why should my taxes pay for you, just because you desperately need help" ?
- A church that isn't entirely based around making money for the "reverend" and isn't overwhelmingly politicised.
- Sensible views on evolution, science in general, abortion, gay marriage, and womens rights.
- And of course, the marked lack of guns in the general populace. An armed society is a polite society my arse. It's a *fearful* society.
As I said, I've been here for a decade now, and I work for a big company with great perks. It's been good for me, but now that I have a kid, the school-shootings thing is getting more and more worrisome. There's literally nothing I can do to prevent some moron raiding his mother's arsenal and killing my kid if that's how he wants to end his life.
The money is good, the people I meet are friendly, the weather is nice, and that used to be sufficient. But as time goes by, it's seeming more and more like a Faustian bargain.
Simon.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see you have not been to the UK for a while. Unfortunately we have many of the same problems that the US does.
- Many of the police are little more than thugs in uniform, and lost the trust of the public.
- University fees are rising. Not as high as the US but still pretty bad and taking decades to clear. In fact many will never clear then within the 25 year limit.
- Our foreign policy is based on an odd mix of delusions of grandeur and being America's bitch. Plenty of people hate us for it.
- Hatred of t
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in CA too, and pay similar taxes. I don't have a problem with the taxes.
When I came to the USA, I was taken aback by just how money-orientated the churches are. I'm irreligious, but I attended church as a kid, and it was actually about the message, about community, and definitely not about the money. Church officials (rectors and curates) are pretty poor in the UK, at least where I grew up - they have housing provided for them, and they live on a meagre salary. They are expected to work long hours for low pay. I don't get that sense when I drive past a church in San Jose that has acres (literally) of parking space, flashy electronic signs, and is located in prime real-estate area. It's very different, trust me.
I've lived here in CA for almost a decade, as I said, it's been great. There's been a couple of local school-shootings in the last year or so. Understand that from a Brit's point of view *anyone* getting shot *ever* is big news. National, prime-time TV news, possibly for days. For it to be sufficiently commonplace that it doesn't even make it past local headlines is ... disturbing.
Your point about talking to people is a good one: if I talk to people from outside the US, our views tend to resonate, but if I talk to people who are US-born, there's way less agreement. I'm not sure if it's because this is "normal" to those born here, that they just haven't experienced anything else, that they think somehow "it couldn't happen to me", or what (sometimes it's definitely a case of USA! USA! USA!). Definitely there is a difference in outlook between natives and foreigners.
One more thing: I'm not trying to paint the UK as some sort of panacea - it's not, by a long chalk. Neither am I US-bashing for the sake of it - the above is just my observations over time. The UK has it's own issues no doubt, but bottom line: even as a white male living in an affluent area in the USA, I feel safer in the UK. And I definitely feel my son would be safer at school there. This is the fact that's weighing on me more and more.
Simon
Re: (Score:3)
Did you just claim that mass shootings at schools in the USA happen less frequently than nuclear meltdowns?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there's quite a lot of history in various parts of the world when parts of a political entity split off. Sometimes this is done peacefully, sometimes it involves serious fighting and wars. An interesting recent case was in Switzerland, where in 1978 the Canton of Bern split, with the northern part forming the new Canton of Jura. You can read a lot about it online, including a couple of wikipedia articles. It's fairly well encoded in Swiss law, where similar votes happen every few years, typically involving a municipality with a large population that wants to secede from its canton and join another. The typical reason for such splits is as in Scotland, where the people in an area feel poorly served by the government, and think they can do better as part of a different county/state/whatever, or perhaps as an independent unit as Jura did.
Here in the US, we had a similar vote in 1863, which resulted in the new state of West Virginia being formed. This is often presented as part of the Civil War split off of the Confederacy. Historians tend to interpret it as more of a case of the western population feeling poorly treated by the remote state government in Richmond, which collect taxes in the mountains, but provided few government services in return. West Virginia did apply to the federal government for statehood, which was ratified after a few years. Unlike the Southern secession, this was done without (further) warfare. A funny aspect of the story is that now, several counties in the northeast of West Virginia have openly discussed seceding and joining either Virginia or Maryland, for pretty much the same reasons. Unlike Switzerland, though, the US doesn't have much in the way of official laws that deal with such political reorganization and redrawing of political boundaries.
The story in Scotland may work out as it often does in Switzerland, where many of the votes for secession fail. The reason is that the referendum functions as a "wake-up call" to the government. It's typical for a lot of public discussion to happen, and the government(s) make promises to fix the problems that triggered the referendum. Sometimes, as people have suggested here, the government reneges on its promises. This will be followed by another vote a few years later, which will often succeed. Or the government may fix many of the problems, which will satisfy the voters and repeated votes will fail.
The Scots would probably do well to continue discussing the issues publicly, and keep the London government aware that they can't continue to get away with everything without repercussions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Everyone loses (Score:4, Informative)
More than a million homosexuals? Where do you come up with that number?
This is what wikipedia gives
"Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Rüdiger Lautmann believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%."
So we're looking at less than 15,000 dead maybe as low as 3,000. Long way from a million.
While not a fan of homosexuality (I admit I find it strange and disgusting) I feel no particular hatred either. More like indifference. I definetly do not support persecution but the outright lies from proponents of that lifestyle are so fucking outrageous.
Civil war (Score:5, Insightful)
In any other part of the world the next step would be riots followed by civil war.
Mostly the reaction seems to be a big "oh well" and a "let's move on".
Re:Civil war (Score:5, Informative)
The vote was a 55-45 margin...and conducted in a safe manner without much in the way to dispute. No reason for riots nor civil war. I also don't think enough was on the line for anyone in Scotland to feel motivated to take up arms. Remember northern Ireland and the IRA? How did that work out for the common person?
Re:Civil war (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, like how the close-run US elections in 2000 resulted in the Great Californian Succession and the Annexing of North Dakota, followed by two decades of brutal guerilla warfare lead by crack teams of Canadian mercenaries. Every time a democratic decision goes the down to the wire, society immediately collapses.
When you have fair democratic decision making in a timely and open fashion, people live with the result. Maybe not happily, and maybe not without division, but life goes on. Where you hold fixed elections in an effort to get an oppressed populace off your back, then you have a civil war.
Re: (Score:3)
Because being healthy and having the ability to live a long comfortable life relatively free of health worries regardless of the size of your bank account....is bad thing that only commies want!
They can do what they want... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re Tennessean.
Hmm... (Score:4, Funny)
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Didn't South Park point out that 1 in 4 Americans are idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Didn't South Park point out that 1 in 4 Americans are idiots?
At least in polls they are. Ask any question, no matter how stupid and one in four Americans will support it. I think it is safe to say: One in four Americans are either idiots or trolling. I could believe either or even both.
Too bad there is so low support for independence though. I think US politics would work better if the states could have their own two party separation and could try different legislation and FAIL instead of being bailed out. Europe has it's share of "challenged" southern states, but it
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is safe to say: One in four Americans are either idiots or trolling. I could believe either or even both.
I love lying to survey takers. If someone wants to waste my time asking me stupid questions, I'll waste his with stupid answers.
I especially love lying to push-pollers. "Why yes, I do favor a candidate who eats babies and pours toxic chemicals down his toilet. What I can't stand are politicians who write federal legislation exempting politicians from the do-no-call list."
Re:Hmm... (Score:4)
Ditto.
After all, what's the point of a poll other than to amuse yourself at the expense of the pollster?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
George Carlin said it best, "Think of how stupid your average person is, and remember that half of them are stupider than that."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(Somewhat related: according to a Reuters poll, one in four Americans want their state to secede from the union.)
Didn't South Park point out that 1 in 4 Americans are idiots?
Actually, Obama upped that to 50+%
Twice.
Gitmo closed yet?
When's that "pivot to jobs" gonna happen?
Warrantless wiretaps stopped yet?
How about that reset with Russia?
Dropping bombs on Libya is NOT "hostilities"!
Syrians crossed that red line yet?
Iraq is so safe now that Obama's declared victory.
When's tee time?
King Putt!
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhere, Fox News is missing a viewer...
Give it a rest, already. He won, get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
Him and his cronies' subsequent crimes against our democracy were so egregious, we rapidly had many other things to complain about.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say that. Frankly I am very dismayed at many of Obama's failings, including carrying over or not stopping many of the regular things they do to rape the constitution in the name of security. However, I think any GOP candidates would have continued things exactly the same, only without the promises to change. I think we'd do well to push them all over a cliff and start over.
But all that doesn't absolve criminal gang A from having started most of this bullshit, and having gone above and beyond the
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Gitmo closed yet?
Like him or hate him, I hardly think you can blame Gitmo staying open on him. Congress basically refused to allow him to close it.
Canada & Quebec (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if this will silence or encourage the separatists that want Quebec to leave Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this will just encourage the leaders of Scotland to hold another referendum, just like Quebec and its "neverendum's"
Those "leaders" clearly dont represent the majority, but sit there waiting for "the right moment" to separate, but yet they plan to keep Canadian passports, Canadian currency, etc. I bet they probably want to keep the transfer payments flowing as well?
So a separate country, but in name only?
Why be a premier when you can be a prime minister?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that whole thing basically lost steam in the 1970's.
Re: (Score:3)
Encourage.
The margins are way too close. If it would've been more like 75% against, the Quebec separatists might have taken a bit of a morale hit, but 55% ? That's a "Please Play Again" for a separatist. The 1980 referendum was 59% against and it certainly didn't stop them.
The real question is whether the Scots are going to be smart enough to tar and feather the next bunch of politicians that decide they want to run
Now, England needs to make good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck? England hasn't done a thing. England has been entirely disenfranchised throughout this whole fucking affair.
About the only thing the people living in England have been given is the chance to hand even more fucking cash over to people living in Scotland.
A glorious victory for all (Score:5, Insightful)
For the UK - they remain united.
For Scotland - they get greater autonomy without the pain of going it alone.
For the Scottish people - their heritage and nationality received much attention (hell I didn't know there WAS a Scottish flag before this). They proved them selves to be paragons of peaceful demonstration and democracy.
For the Britons - the Welsh and Irish nationalities in the UK benefit from greater recognition as well. The English too!
The UK is an amazing and interesting union - and all should be proud to be a part. And who knows... maybe the next generation will decide Yes.
Such is the take of this American anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a loss for all the flagmakers who were gearing up to produce whatever the new UK flag would be. How often do you get the chance to sell a new flag to everybody in a nation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Incidentally, the Union of the Crowns predates the Union of the Parliaments.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that there are 21 States more than twice the size of Scotland, of which eight are more than three times the size of Scotland, of which one each are four times, five times, seven times, and twenty times as big as Scotland.
And, on an unrelated note, for you Texans out there, remember that if Alaska were split into two States, Texas would then be the THIRD largest State....
Obligatory (Score:3)
The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Scot living through the referendum, it has been a sea of optimism and YES flags and events. Many people, including myself woke up this morning very disappointed but also wondering how did this happen:
One of the biggest revelations was that The over-65's swung it for No [lordashcroftpolls.com] whilst all age groups from 16 to 55 voted for independence. one of the key elements of the YES campaign is that none of the media TV channels or daily newspapers supported independence and so Scots could only get information from the internet. Twitter, websites such as Bella Caledonia [bellacaledonia.org.uk], Wings over Scotland [wingsoverscotland.com] have been on the only places to find real information that hadn't been skewed heavily in favour of the No campaign.
The over-65's are the least internet connected and the most trustworthy of the BBC, even though the BBC has been accused of bias in an academic study [thedrum.com] from a survey of their entire news output over a 6 month period.
Also, the over-65's have the shortest time stake in this. plus have had the trappings of gold plated pensions that the generation behind them cannot look forward to. It's a disgusting state of affairs and as a Scot I am embarrassed for my country.
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Interesting)
oh no, I would never say my vote was more important, nor indeed that I am somehow more correct than my fellow Scot. The points I was making were:
There has been a well documented bias in the media. Even the media here agree with that. There has been a huge discussion here in Scotland about the role of social media in this referendum, not unlike Tunisia, Egypt and so on. Politicians have said that things were out of control as both campaigns became alive oin social media. The pro-Yes media (aparty from one sunday paper) were online and largely funded by indigogo public funding campaigns.
This was the first poll we've had in living memory that has not had an exit poll; Lord Ashcroft's poll whilst not perfect is the closest we have to understand the voting demographic.
I ws making the correlation (not causation) link that over-65's were also the least connected in society. I admit I was also a bit rude about the over-65's.
Since I last posted, the pledge from the parties behind the No campaign for more devolution powers have already fallen apart. A lot of people voted no because they were promised a more federalised UK
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not quite so sure 16-17 year olds can be written off as a horde of yesbots. I recall NPR reporting yesterday that the teenage demographic surprised most with how 'No' they were, and they interviewed a couple who made clear they were decently informed of the issues. Expanding the voter pool to include more rightful citizens, who are going to spend the rest of their lives affected by this decision, is not 'rigging the game'.
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Interesting)
But they didn't do that. They only set the age at 16 for this vote because they believed that the younger crowd would vote yes, which is the way they wanted. Whether or not young people actually voted yes doesn't change the fact that the Scottish government played fast and loose with the democratic system. I don't really see how this is any different than the gerrymandering that goes on the in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the 16 and 17 grouping voted 72% for yes, but the 18 - 24 bracket voted by a majority for no so they were in fact just a bunch of yes bots- when the reality of personal finances, seeking full time work, having a family etc. really comes into play at age 18+ the result massively swung back towards no.
The problem with letting them vote is that by and large pretty much none of them have experience of mortgages and so forth so don't understand the impact increases to cost of borrowing and so forth could ha
Re: (Score:2)
Not being Scottish, I have to say that I'm relieved. Granted, if I lived there I'd probably have voted Yes. But from the outside? How would that split have worked out in the end? The UK would swing wildly right... Quickly get involved in lots of wars, crack down on "terrorists" etc... Scotland would have swung wildly left, and quickly bankrupted themselves with social programs. Balance is a good thing, even if you're currently getting the short end of the stick.
I'd like to say that perhaps the powers that b
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the over 65s are the ones that aren't taken in by the lies, misdirection and naive optimism of the fishy politicians in the SNP?
Perhaps they remembered that although Scotland didn't vote in the current Government, it did vote in the previous one which caused many of the current economic problems.
Could they even have noticed that despite all the calls of bullying the only bullies in the debate were members of the SNP?
Or possibly you're right, and it was all just media bias and an inability for the propaganda to reach them.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, 40-50 of the 59 MPs voted in by people in Scotland were part of the majority Government and you don't think that Government represented Scotland?
The Yes campaign was bitching that "we didn't vote for this government". I was pointing out that they did vote for the previous one. I didn't say that their vote was solely behind the majority.
So yes I will be honest, and will put "Can do basic logic" on my next annual appraisal.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you presenting one guy's personal poll of only 2000 people as the election result? It's only got a dozen people in some of the age bins, for God's sake.
And even then the 18-25 year-olds voted no!
Re: (Score:2)
Because you looked at the polls and the betting markets and you thought you knew better. Once again, you were wrong. Remember a guy called Kerry?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Scotland is not oppressed, it does not have severe racial/religious/ethnic divides with the rest of the UK. It was not conquered by England. Nobody has family members that have died because of the Union. In fact the Union has been ruled by Scottish PM's twice in recent history.
That makes splitting it out into a new country a largely technical matter of economics and future government policy. It's quite dry stuff. The Yes campaign chose to ignore this and attempted to whip up a notion of Scottish exceptionalism through the constant "fairer better society" rhetoric, but ultimately they lost because when people asked questions about the technical details of why Scotland would be better and whether it'd be worth the cost, they had no answers. Given that the primary impact of independence would be economic, this lack of planning proved fatal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ouch. I've seen quite a few family breakup analogies, but this is the first time I saw Scotland be the child instead of the spouse.
If we're going analogise a country to a person, actually I'd say it's pretty natural to seek out unions even though they involve giving up some independence. That's why people get married. That's why the EU keeps growing. Even the most perfect couples don't always agree all the time, but they find ways to figure it out because it's better together than apart. Divorces are univer
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me the well known Americanism, "reality has a liberal bias".
I followed the BBC's coverage quite carefully and did not see any bias. What I did see is a lot of ardent highly emotional yes supporters interpret the stream of stories about the campaign as being against yes and therefore the authors must be biased. So let's take a look at your link about this "academic study" that claims to scientifically assess the bias of the BBC:
Well fuck me. The evidence of this bias is that "expert advice against independence was more common"? Seriously? Did this guy even think before writing this so-called academic study? Here's another explanation: maybe expert opinion was against independence because it didn't make much sense?
What about "associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond"? The entire independence campaign can be summed up as the personal wish of Alex Salmond. He devoted his entire career to Scottish independence. He led the party that called for it. It has been his project since day one. No surprise that disentangling the arguments and evidence from his personal wishes is so hard, especially because the yes campaign was so lacking in detail and substance.
Last reason to see the BBC as biased, "a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes". Well, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The entire yes campaign can be summed up as repeating over and over that everything will be better post-yes because Salmond says so and anyone who disagrees is a scaremonger. That was the entire argument for independence. If you're a journalist there's only so many times you can publish this viewpoint as a story before it stops being news. The arguments against independence on the other hand were complex and multi-faceted. There was the currency union issue of course, but also the question of how the EU would react, whether there'd be border controls, how assets would be split up, whether the oil projections were really accurate and then the steady stream of people either with expertise or in highly placed positions coming out against yes. There was lots to write about, new stories every day.
Given that state of affairs, I don't see how the media could possibly have published more articles that were pro-yes than pro-no simply because the yes side had nothing to say.
I'm embarrassed for your country too, partly because of absurd arguments like the ones you just deployed - essentially saying that old people can't use the internet and therefore must be stupid and uninformed. Perhaps you should take the next logical step and argue for their disenfranchisement too.
Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score:5, Informative)
Those foolish over-65s.
They voted reflexively, after reviewing trivial issues like:
- the SNP's assurances that Scotland would be a member of NATO and the EU were completely wrong (both the EU and NATO rebuffed the 'automatic membership' that the SNP was asserting they were entitled to)
- losing their currency (The British public was 2/3 against letting Scotland keep the pound. The Exchequer had said no, and most economists said the 'Sterling Union' proposed by the SNP was a stupid idea)
- The departure of most major Scottish business southward - hell, even the Royal BANK OF SCOTLAND was leaving if "Yes" won the vote...
- SNPs domestic agenda that pretty much amounted to a Socialist Utopia funded entirely on North Sea oil that they felt they would automagically inherit without contest (never mind revenues have been falling there for a decade or more)
Essentially the SNP's platform was "if everyone does what we say should happen, with the most optimistic interpretation of everything possible, nobody disagrees, and Britain pays for everything, it'll all be hunky-dory...probably" was an exercise in extended political farce that only had currency because Cameron (stupidly) gave it credibility.
Let's remember too that the referendum was NON-BINDING. There was promised a referendum, and then "we would act in the best interests of the Scottish people"....that's all.
Maybe - as has been abundantly proved in many other contexts - the 16-18s that got to vote were easily swayed by emotions, having not thought through the issues seriously and more likely the 65s just barely countered them?
FWIW, I think this would be a brilliant time to do as some conservative MP suggested and re-write the 1707 Act of Union to enfranchise each 'kingdom' within the UK equally, and no longer allow a bunch of whingers in Glasgow to play the tune.
I admire much about Scotland, but this referendum seemed to be playing to their stupid side.
Funny (Score:2, Insightful)
A heart, he no doubt had stolen from a Welsh, Irish, or Scottish street urchin.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he gets Rupert Murdoch's hand-me-downs. Murdoch long ago gave up on free-range urchin hearts - he now farms them in a huge facility under Slough.
Too bad (Score:5, Interesting)
They could have told the EU to get out. After seeing what lack of control of your own currency did to Greece, Italy, and Spain I've come to the conclusion the tight economic binding which is the EU is a bad idea. There are also no firewalls. It creates a situation where a country as small as Greece, Italy, or Spain can threaten to take down the entire global economy.
Re:Free Willy! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free Willy! (Score:5, Interesting)
They vote for members of the Parliament in London
Except for the members of the House of Lords, which nobody votes for. If I had a Parliament like that and got to vote against it, I would.
and have their own Scottish Assembly
Which doesn't have all the powers that many people want it to have...
Re:Free Willy! (Score:5, Interesting)
The house of lords arguably has a stabilising influence though. The MPs in the commons have to get voted in. That tends to mean they promise the world, and then find they can't live up to their promises. It also means they follow the most popular policies with short-term views. The lords have secure seats, so they get to focus more on the long-term impacts. It's not ideal, but it's not a terrible system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most importantly the Parliament Act allows the Commons to force a bill through Lords if it's been sent back twice already, regardless of what the Lords want. Therefore the most the HoL can do is slow things down.
Given this fact it's probably not surprising that nobody cares much about reforming it. It's another check/balance and all it can ultimately do is throw sand in the wheels, it has no real power.
Re:Free Willy! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is also a good argument that applies to the United States, too. It explains why the 17th Amendmennt [wikipedia.org] was a mistake.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know that jus primae noctis has been abolished, right?
It actually hasn't been abolished because, you know, it's kind of hard to abolish something which most likely didn't actually exist [wikipedia.org].
Re:Free Willy! (Score:4, Informative)
It is not just that "jus primae noctis" (otherwise known as "Droit du seigneur") was abolished
it in fact never existed in the first place!
Taken from wikipidia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
from the section -- Literary and other references
Braveheart (1995); ius primae noctis is invoked by Edward Longshanks in an attempt to breed the Scots out. This was one of the many inaccuracies cited by critics of the film.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Free Willy! (Score:3)
Technically speaking, it is impossible for a Lord to sit in the House of Commons of even vote.
While the prime minister does not have to be a member of the House of Commons, or be a commonor at all, he is chosen by them and they are unlikely to choose anyone but one of their own, meaning no lord has been Prime Minister for well over a century. Walpole who founded the post three centuries ago was a commoner and most of his successors have been too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Legal recourse (Score:3)
The US has plenty of attorneys with experience representing plaintiffs in contested national elections, going back at least to 2000.
To those of you in Scotland, feel free to take as many as you want. Return is not necessary. Special volume discounts available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Non-Binding, right? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, it's binding alright. Westminster ceded the necessary legal powers regarding the nature of the union through the Edinburgh Agreement.
Re:Continues a worrying trend (Score:5, Informative)
People want to live in a country without paying for its upkeep. What's next, city-states?
What's your point? That Scotland won't be "contributing" when it remains a part of the United Kingdom, somehow?
Your comment on "city states" sounds far more reminiscent of the direction in which London is heading. It's already approaching an entity in its own right within England, increasingly unbalancing the United Kingdom and heavily influenced by tax-dodging multinational companies.
The "City of London" (a historic title which refers only to the financial "square mile" rather than the other several hundred square miles of London itself) is notoriously undemocratic, prominent way, *way* beyond its nominal area, and interferes on behalf of its corporate paymasters in the working of the UK in general:-
http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]