Scottish Independence

[peter]

Surely democracy is not just the 'tyranny of the majority' if it goes hand in hand with an acceptance of consensus. If allowed to continue ad infinitum would not the process of minorities splitting from majorities never end untill every man split from his neighbour? At some point 'self-rule' has to have a line drawn under it or we move from democracy to anarchy.

In respect of the post vote situation - how the Tories must be laughing for truly they have won the day whatever the outcome [and I think the Labour Party only now realise it.] The first statement of Cameron, contained a declaration to adress 'the West-Lothian question' in which Scottish [and Welsh] MP's can vote in Westminster on issues that only effect England [the opposit is not true]. Since Scotland only return one Conservative MP, yet there is a fairly even balance of Labour and Conservative MP's elected in total, it can be seen that by devolving powers to deal with English issues purely to English elected MP's [as Cameron says he now wants to do], any future elected Labour government would be totally unable to pass any legislation that pertained to England due to it's dearth of MP's in England itself. This is fine if your 'doing ok Jack' - but don't be sick, and don't be old; don't be disabled and don't be unemployed!

[peter]

The ex-leader of the SNP [who resigned after the 'No' vote delivered on Thursday] has stoked the fires of the defeated nationalists anger today by claiming they have been 'tricked' by false promises of increased devolution by Westminster. There have already been clashes between the pro and anti independance factions on Friday night [not serious, but happening never the less] and this can only serve to raise tensions further. I repeat, this vote has been a disaster for the UK and one for which the ramifications will spread down through the years. Numbers of pundits have said they have doubts that the Union will ever be the same again - or that it can even survive!

[finn]

Now that we have polled Scottish opinion, perhaps now is the time to poll English opinion and have a referendum about whether the English want to keep the Scots.

[Avatar]

Ah well, sorta sad if unsurprised, but suspect that for now this was the economically sounder route.

--A

[TheFallen]

Back to Murrin's interesting and very well-found graph showing the age demographics of voting in the Scottish independence referendum for a moment. I doubt that it comes as a surprise to any of us to see the level of Yes votes amongst 16-17 year olds - bringing them into the equation was always nothing more than a blatant attempt to rig the vote by the nationalist-dominated Scottish parliament.

To put some numbers on things, there were approximately 121,500 16-17 year olds entitled to vote. Presuming that 84.5% of them did (the turnout average, though that's possibly a low assumption), that'd make roughly 102.7k votes from this agegroup. Murrin shows a 79% bias towards Yes, so that agegroup can be considered to have cast 81.1k Yes votes versus only 21.6k votes No.

Would it have made a substantive difference if the vote had been restricted to 18+ as is normal? Not really - presuming the above basic assumptions are correct, this would have been the situation:-

Referendum Result As Cast

Total Votes Cast: 3,619,915
Votes For: 1,617,989 (44.7%)
Votes Against: 2,001,926 (55.3%)

Referendum Result Removing Assumed 16-17 Year-Old Votes

Total Votes Cast: 3,517,220
Votes For: 1,536,890 (43.7%)
Votes Against: 1,980,330 (56.3%)

So, a simple overall 1% swing towards No, then, were the youngsters to have been excluded. However, on such small margins can elections be won (can anyone say "chad"?) and so it was demonstrably and definitely still worth the Nationalists trying to rig the vote by forcing in the "rebels without a clue" mid-teen vote.

Moving onto predicted ramifications...

In respect of the post vote situation - how the Tories must be laughing for truly they have won the day whatever the outcome [and I think the Labour Party only now realise it.] The first statement of Cameron, contained a declaration to adress 'the West-Lothian question' in which Scottish [and Welsh] MP's can vote in Westminster on issues that only effect England [the opposit is not true]. Since Scotland only return one Conservative MP, yet there is a fairly even balance of Labour and Conservative MP's elected in total, it can be seen that by devolving powers to deal with English issues purely to English elected MP's [as Cameron says he now wants to do], any future elected Labour government would be totally unable to pass any legislation that pertained to England due to it's dearth of MP's in England itself...

...I repeat, this vote has been a disaster for the UK and one for which the ramifications will spread down through the years. Numbers of pundits have said they have doubts that the Union will ever be the same again - or that it can even survive!

Now that we have polled Scottish opinion, perhaps now is the time to poll English opinion and have a referendum about whether the English want to keep the Scots.

I'm pretty sure that peter and maybe even finn are right. One of the most significant things that this whole referendum has done is alert a whole heap of the electorate in the rest of the UK as to the current state of things. It's not that these issues have ever been hidden as such - it's just that they've never been forced onto centre stage and as such have never impinged upon the mass consciousness... until now, that is.

Firstly, Peter's again right when he highlights the "West Lothian question" - where a Scottish MP sitting in the national UK parliament can happily vote on issues that affect England, but may not be able to vote on issues that directly affect his own constituency (if such matters fall under the auspices of the dedicated and already extant Scottish parliament - as many matters already do, with even more being set to do so under the promised further devolution of powers). So basically, English (and to a fractionally lesser extent Welsh and Northern Irish) MPs already have a bunch of Scots in the House of Commons, casting votes on regional issues that have nothing to do with them - but the reverse is NOT true. This is clearly both unfair and frankly ludicrous.

Secondly, the existence of the Barnett formula's been highlighted. This is the apparently arbitrary formula that's been in place since 1979 that has always already favoured the Scots (among others) in terms of per capita Government spending. This from a post of mine up-thread.

...it's becoming clear that from a budgetary point of view, Scotland's already substantially advantaged over the rest of the UK. The UK already subsidises Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion per annum (!!!), which explains why Scottish residents benefit from things such as free University education, far widerspread exemption from prescription charges and fully state-funded care for the elderly - none of which the rest of us get. This then already begs the screaming question - how come? If you want the actual figures of per capita spending - according to latest UK treasury figures released less than two months ago, they run as follows:-

Average UK annual government spending per head: £8,788

Scotland per head: £10,152 (16% above national average)

Wales per head: £9,709 (10% above national average)

N. Ireland per head: £10,876 (24% above national average)

England per head: £8,529 (3% below national average)

...which pretty much explains why those over the Northern border can afford benefits such as peter again pointed out earlier:-

Already in Scotland you get free prescriptions, home-care of the elderly, geriatric hospitalisation, University education and teeth and eye check-ups, all of which are denied to the rest of the UK and the rest of the UK is not happy about it.

Damn right the rest of the UK's suddenly found itself seriously pissed at the revelation of how unfairly slanted the playing field's been for years - and even more pissed at the fact (to add insult to injury) that a promise of devolution of yet more self-governing powers onto the Scots has been made by all three major political parties.

This is what the Scottish independence referendum has achieved. The electorate in the rest of the UK is suddenly saying "Huh? How come things are so biassed?" I really am now expecting a separate (or at least sub-set) parliament for England, voting on solely English issues (and a beefing-up of powers bestowed upon the existing Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies). Milliband and Labour have a major problem now, as has been pointed out several times up-thread - Labour pretty much relies upon the UK-wide parliament seats it almost invariably wins in Scotland. A situation could easily occur in a year's time where Labour holds a UK-wide majority when it comes to whatever issues are left that are defined as truly national (defence?), but at the self-same time the Conservatives hold a majority within England and thus over those issues that have been defined as regional (including welfare, taxation, education).

Interesting times coming over the next 12 months, I reckon...

[TheFallen]

{Duplicate post removed]

[I'm Murrin]

The 16-17 vote on that graph should be disregarded - it's the result of a very small sample size of that demographic.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The ex-leader of the SNP [who resigned after the 'No' vote delivered on Thursday] has stoked the fires of the defeated nationalists anger today by claiming they have been 'tricked' by false promises of increased devolution by Westminster. There have already been clashes between the pro and anti independance factions on Friday night [not serious, but happening never the less] and this can only serve to raise tensions further. I repeat, this vote has been a disaster for the UK and one for which the ramifications will spread down through the years. Numbers of pundits have said they have doubts that the Union will ever be the same again - or that it can even survive!

The fringe of the separatists will eventually turn truly violent, possibly even to the point of committing random shootings or bombings with the goal of forcing the separation. The other people who voted to leave will sulk for a bit then set about trying to bring another resolution for the people to vote on--they will continue trying until they succeed.

Sometimes, democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Recall the old saying, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting about what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote".

[peter]

By linking the sepparation of English voting rights to the additional devolution of powers to Scotland, but only doing it after the vote and the earlier promises made [by all three {Westminster} party leaders], Cameron has effectively shafted both the Scottish and the Labour party with one thrust [ sorry about that]. Understandably, both shaftee's are predictably pissed by his [underhand?] manoevering and are vocally expressing this. A Scottish guy who comes into the shop said that in his oppinion this will drive ever more people into the 'yes' camp, to the point where in a few years time Scotland will arrange there own vote and then declare independance unilaterally. Lets hope he's wrong or else watch the sparks fly!

[Phantasm]

Not been on the Watch recently, so just catching up with this.

As a proud Scot, and Scottish Nationalist Party supporter, I was totally devastated that the people of Scotland voted "No".

The outstanding questions of currency, the EU, Nato etc. that were there before the vote were, of course, contributing factors for the electorate.

What I cannot understand is - why, given the choice of being an independent country making decisions to benefit your own people, would you vote for an outcome that puts the majority of major political decisions in the hands a bunch of politicians who clearly do not have the best interests of Scotland at heart.

Boris Johnston, mayor of London, prospective MP in the next parliament, and probable future Conservative party leader (and who knows, Prime Minister) said "A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclde"

That is the future of Scotland under a Westminster parliament - devolved powers? We'll see how true to their word Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are - there were grumblings by backbenchers the day after the referendum saying they wouldn't support the legislation to devolve powers because the 3 amigos didn't have a mandate to offer those powers.

I can hold my head up and say I voted YES for a fairer, independent Scotland, governed in the best interests of the Scottish people.

I am still bitterly disappointed at this outcome, but this isn't over - there is a groundswell of political activity still supporting a move towards independence.

[Morning]

Aye for the 45.

[finn]

The outstanding questions of currency, the EU, Nato etc. that were there before the vote were, of course, contributing factors for the electorate.

Not really irrelevant small potatoes: it reminds me of a Peter Cook sketch where as a judge summing up for the jury, he lists the many failings of the defendant before adding "....or on the other hand you can believe the evidence".

Scotland is not really a going concern and the lifestyle is subsidised by the taxpayer so that a pound in Strathclyde is actually worth more than a pound in Croydon, because in Croydon the guy in the street is paying off a Uni loan or chipping in for medical treatment. The English would be better off by dumping Scotland and letting them make a fist of running themselves............ but inevitably the rumblings would then be about how its the fault of the English that their roads are falling apart and they have to pay for health and education.

The fact that Scottish members can have a say on how the rest of the country is run but the rest of the country are not afforded that same privilege is an outrage. Scottish regional issues are the job of a Council not the Parliament.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I am still bitterly disappointed at this outcome, but this isn't over - there is a groundswell of political activity still supporting a move towards independence.

Eventually it will happen. The people who voted "yes" will continue to fight for what they want and the people who voted "no" will, from time to time, wonder what life would be like had they voted "yes". A little more gentle coaxing and enough "no" people will become "yes" people.

[Avatar]

What I cannot understand is - why, given the choice of being an independent country making decisions to benefit your own people, would you vote for an outcome that puts the majority of major political decisions in the hands a bunch of politicians who clearly do not have the best interests of Scotland at heart.

Because then you can blame them when things go badly. Great to see you around Phantasm.

Like you, I would love to see an independent Scotland. But the economy issue really troubles me. I would hate to see an independent Scotland collapse economically and have to go crawling back.

--A

[Morning]

I am still bitterly disappointed at this outcome, but this isn't over - there is a groundswell of political activity still supporting a move towards independence.

Eventually it will happen. The people who voted "yes" will continue to fight for what they want and the people who voted "no" will, from time to time, wonder what life would be like had they voted "yes". A little more gentle coaxing and enough "no" people will become "yes" people.

And the latter will die off. Only >55s were clearly Nay. All the young'uns have to do is hold fast and wait. Of course, therein may lie the problem...

[peter]

Exactly; the issue is as emotive as it is rational. At the end of the day the future belongs to the young and as said above their time will come. [But when it does will they of course, still think like 'the young'.]

[Morning]

The 16-17 vote on that graph should be disregarded - it's the result of a very small sample size of that demographic.

It's also the vote of those who will be paying for future pensions.