Scotland Indepdence debate

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Sep 20, 2014 11:15 am

Salmond is resigning, he will formally step down at his party conference in November but doesn't quite give Sturgeon clear backing. The former civil servant and economist became Scotland's longest-serving first minister, since 2007, and having been SNP leader (with breaks) for a long time. He doesn't have to resign, there isn't the pressure on him to go yet, either he anticpates a backlash or quite simply, the defeat has shattered him. Will remain as MSP for Aberdeenshire East and we may not not have heard the last of him.

The party was something of a small time thing, a joke that was never going to influence matters but Salmond leaves it as the governing party in Scotland, a place where the Hollyrood system was made to ensure that never happened. His achievements as a political campaigner have been incredible and he leaves the SNP, despite the way it will feel right now with dreams shattered a big hole at the top, in a better place then he inherited.

Salmond was a divisive figure, some saw him as a bully and arrogant who put them off, others saw him as charismatic and a forceful presence who inspired them, he showed an alternative path. He helped build up a fantastic ground camapign that knocked the socks off Labour, he was a skilled orator and a formidable debater. He could win impossible elections at a time when Westminister parties are forced to seek Coalitions. Scotland has lost one it's biggest beasts.

Sturgeon seen as the clear front-runner to take over, Salmond's close deputy and SNP's second biggest name, a formidable political operator. However we will see who emerges to try and run against her.

====

DragonAtma wrote:Also, the news kept reporting maniacally that there may have been up to ten fraudulent votes. They never seem to point out that even if they were all fraudulent, it's only 0.0026% of the votes needed to change the result.


I wouldn't say manically but still a major concern for the authorities


WeiWenDi wrote:I think the best that can come out of this vote is that the national government will honour the concessions they offered to counter some of the Yes campaign's demands;


In some shape or form, that will happen. Its more the constitutional changes for rest of UK that are uncertain

and that as a whole the government will tack in a more leftward and Eurosceptic direction.


To the left, that might happen, might not. Depends on general election results. However all the main left-wing parties other then the Greens are pro-EU. The anti-EU parties would put the UK in a referendum and if UK goes out, Scotland will have a referendum on the union.

maybe I come off a bit like Sima Yi here, since I have always been in favour of the Union and yet think that there is a good deal of proper feeling, not to the Yes campaign itself but to the general sentiments of the Scottish populace it tapped into. Scotland apparently demands, and northern England in particular needs, a government with a much more social-democratic flavour and a firmer commitment to a genuine safety net for the economically-stressed people who live in such areas.


Edit: I want to come back onto the left-wing part but lack time. Will make post later on or when replying to you WWD

I think Northern England needs to be less of a one party state who votes the same party whatever happens (UKIP, whatever else, will hopefully be good at ending that), stop shooting down major political reforms that would grant it more powers but maybe more devolution to certain areas will help get resources and it's chance to set out it's own way.

Interesting that No won so strongly in Aberdeen and Edinburgh - though probably not surprising. Still, that Yes won in Glasgow shows that the Yes campaign was not simply carried by the victims of Thatcherism. Indeed, the out-and-out poorest regions of Scotland (particularly the Mairches, East Lothian, Stirling, Argyll and Bute) showed particularly strong No votes, and I truly don't think this was for want of information or fear of Westminster's retribution.


The islands were going to be Unionist but it was always felt that Yes would thrive among the very poorest, the one with the least to lose. So that part is surprising
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14456
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Sun Fin » Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:14 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:Salmond is resigning, he will formally step down at his party conference in November


His probably running away scared of another whipping from Saviour Brown :wink:
“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” ― Nelson Mandela
User avatar
Sun Fin
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 6446
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The birthplace of radio

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby DragonAtma » Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:14 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:
DragonAtma wrote:Also, the news kept reporting maniacally that there may have been up to ten fraudulent votes. They never seem to point out that even if they were all fraudulent, it's only 0.0026% of the votes needed to change the result.


I wouldn't say manically but still a major concern for the authorities


It's only a major concern because the crazies will undoubtedly use them as an excuse to try and stop legitimate voters from voting, just as the gop shoved voter id through every state they could.
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:09 pm

We had ten cases of electoral fraud and identity theft. Should not police always be concerned by that? Should not the Electoral Commission keep an eye on this things given our system is perhaps (from what I recall) open to abuse?
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14456
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby laojim » Sat Sep 20, 2014 7:43 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:We had ten cases of electoral fraud and identity theft. Should not police always be concerned by that? Should not the Electoral Commission keep an eye on this things given our system is perhaps (from what I recall) open to abuse?


If that is in fact the case then obviously someone is already keeping an eye on the matter and there is no need for any additional measures because the current level of fraud is trivial and the law does not concern itself with trivia. The only way to ensure an entirely clean election and entirely clean voting is, obviously, tyranny. Some bearable level of crime is one of the costs of a free society.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Boydie » Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:16 pm

Fantastic result for Better Together, watched the whole thing with my mates who live basically right next to Holyrood, a fair amount of alcohol was consumed by all and I paid for it with an almighty hangover yesterday. :lol: I think the turnout is the highest in Britain, for any vote, since WW2, and an all-time Scottish record.

I was fairly confident with Scotland voting NO beforehand, even when YES took the lead when Dundee's results came through, but it was well known Dundee would be a heavy YES, their lead was tiny and only lasted a few minutes. Without Glasgow it would have been a really embarrassing night for the nats, 28 out of 32 local authorities supporting the Union. But I'm very disappointed both Glasgow and North Lanarkshire, two of the four biggest, found Yes majorities. Edinburgh was always going to a heavy NO, it had been well known.

Few more things I want to add…

1. There will never be a more propitious time for the Nats to try to win a referendum - the back of a bad recession, with austerity measures in place, a relatively unpopular Tory-led government in Westminster, a relatively popular SNP government at Holyrood, and plenty of oil in the North Sea. All these factors will change, and may never come together in this combination again.

2. The Nats dictated this one, and we were badly let down by our negotiators. The Nats picked the timing of the campaign, both the date and its length. The Nats chose the franchise, adding 16-18yo's and excluding expats, even in the rest of the UK, The Nats got the positive option and their choice was first on the ballot paper. All of these factors conspired to inflate the Yes vote.

In those circumstances, and when you add in the relative complacency, initially, of the Unionist parties, and the disorganised campaign run by Better Together (I can say that now - it was a bit of a shambles), it's incredible we actually won. Or to put it another way, even with all this favouring them, the Nats still lost by 10%, nearly 400,000 votes. 2 million voted to save the Union.

I doubt the Nats will ever win another Holyrood majority. We certainly must work to ensure it never happens. Even if they do, I can't see Westminster (where the legal right lies) allowing them another referendum within at least another 20 years. Even if we do, eventually, have another referendum, it's not likely to be on anything like as favourable terms for the Nats - that lesson has been learned.

I believe we have seen the High Water Mark of Scottish Nationalism - as long as we work to ensure that is the case.
User avatar
Boydie
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:47 pm
Location: In your closet.

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby DragonAtma » Sun Sep 21, 2014 3:56 am

Dong Zhou wrote:We had ten cases of electoral fraud and identity theft. Should not police always be concerned by that? Should not the Electoral Commission keep an eye on this things given our system is perhaps (from what I recall) open to abuse?


In the US, we had thirteen cases of people trying to fraudulent voting and, as a result, thousands of legal voters were blocked by Voter ID.

So yes, you should be VERY concerned, because there'll be calls for the crazies to try the same thing over there.

http://theweek.com/article/index/230345 ... d-epidemic
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_rep ... ack_votes/
https://www.rutherford.org/publications ... an_people/
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby laojim » Sun Sep 21, 2014 7:30 am

DragonAtma wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote:We had ten cases of electoral fraud and identity theft. Should not police always be concerned by that? Should not the Electoral Commission keep an eye on this things given our system is perhaps (from what I recall) open to abuse?


In the US, we had thirteen cases of people trying to fraudulent voting and, as a result, thousands of legal voters were blocked by Voter ID.

So yes, you should be VERY concerned, because there'll be calls for the crazies to try the same thing over there.


Foreigners may not realize that all these blocked voters---blocked by Republican legislation---are registered voters, which means they filed an affidavit, or some similar document asserting that they are citizens and so on, except, of course, for North Dakota where they don't have voter registration. This was the state of affairs until the Republicans decided they could win elections by blocking the vote and, in one famous case, they even went to the Supreme Court to stop votes from being counted. It is not an exageration to state that voter fraud and election fraud are not a matter of a few people trying to pull a fast one, it is the clear and deliberate intent of the Republican party.
laojim
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:47 am

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Sep 21, 2014 6:17 pm

laojim wrote:
If that is in fact the case then obviously someone is already keeping an eye on the matter and there is no need for any additional measures because the current level of fraud is trivial and the law does not concern itself with trivia. The only way to ensure an entirely clean election and entirely clean voting is, obviously, tyranny. Some bearable level of crime is one of the costs of a free society.


DragonAtma wrote:
In the US, we had thirteen cases of people trying to fraudulent voting and, as a result, thousands of legal voters were blocked by Voter ID.

So yes, you should be VERY concerned, because there'll be calls for the crazies to try the same thing over there.

http://theweek.com/article/index/230345 ... d-epidemic
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_rep ... ack_votes/
https://www.rutherford.org/publications ... an_people/


I'll leave international observers, who were concerned about how open our system was to abuse five years or so ago (don't know if that has changed), and the domestic experts to decide if things need to change. Besides The Electoral Commission realized our system was so open to abuse a few years ago and begun reforms, like individual voter registration, which will have issues but I don't see why a respected neutral body shouldn't keep an eye on the system.

Sorry your country messed up. I don't see though why, given our system isn't run by American Republicans and there aren't mass calls (or even mass media coverage bar the dutiful "we have to report it") for something to be done, why your both so alarmed? The UK isn't America. The police, for prosecution reasons, and the Electoral Commission, to see if there are lessons rather then the casual "everything is fine. We might become America if we even look at the issue", should investigate.

It is fraud and one should always seek to learn.

WWD wrote:maybe I come off a bit like Sima Yi here, since I have always been in favour of the Union and yet think that there is a good deal of proper feeling, not to the Yes campaign itself but to the general sentiments of the Scottish populace it tapped into. Scotland apparently demands, and northern England in particular needs, a government with a much more social-democratic flavour and a firmer commitment to a genuine safety net for the economically-stressed people who live in such areas.


I'm not utterly convinced that only left-leaning governments can save Scotland from leaving the union. There is the Tory toxic issue yes but that mixes in with the Hollyrood issue. Scotland, like much of England, doesn't trust the Westminster group as a whole and they want Hollyrood to have powers, to protect what Scotland wants but it is also clear they think Hollyood is on the level of a London mayor rather then a rival to Westminister. Thus the NHS issue, Scotland clearly believed that the Tories, thank you Burnham, would turn the NHS into America as they don't realize only Hollyrood had the relevant power.

So we need to give Scotland the powers and make them aware it has the powers. Of course with that would also go with the responsibilities which could change a few things including how Scotland votes but Scotland needs to not only have but feel to have the powers and responsibilities it wants/needs, that Hollyrood is a real power. Westminster needs to also stop being the automatic scapegoat and buffer, that what goes wrong in Scotland will be the failings of it's own government.

Also requires Labour to not see Scotland as a fiefdom they can treat as they will.

Boydie wrote:1. There will never be a more propitious time for the Nats to try to win a referendum - the back of a bad recession, with austerity measures in place, a relatively unpopular Tory-led government in Westminster, a relatively popular SNP government at Holyrood, and plenty of oil in the North Sea. All these factors will change, and may never come together in this combination again.


There might be. Falling out of the EU or a UKIP government. :wink: The SNP will be better prepared next time, more then a hint of suspicion that SNP weren't quite prepared when they got to power, but the union also now has time to prepare after this shock. If the union messes this up then Scotland might decide not to give us another chance

2. The Nats dictated this one, and we were badly let down by our negotiators. The Nats picked the timing of the campaign, both the date and its length. The Nats chose the franchise, adding 16-18yo's and excluding expats, even in the rest of the UK, The Nats got the positive option and their choice was first on the ballot paper. All of these factors conspired to inflate the Yes vote.


The only factors I agree where we got ourselves on the wrong side, 1) timing, 2) allowing expats to be excluded, 3) allowing ourselves to be the No.

In those circumstances, and when you add in the relative complacency, initially, of the Unionist parties, and the disorganised campaign run by Better Together (I can say that now - it was a bit of a shambles), it's incredible we actually won. Or to put it another way, even with all this favouring them, the Nats still lost by 10%, nearly 400,000 votes. 2 million voted to save the Union.


We had a large majority going into the referendum, the SNP started from a very very low base. The three parties did a great job botching the camapign granted but it was hardly incredible we won given we started with such a massive advantage.

I doubt the Nats will ever win another Holyrood majority. We certainly must work to ensure it never happens. Even if they do, I can't see Westminster (where the legal right lies) allowing them another referendum within at least another 20 years. Even if we do, eventually, have another referendum, it's not likely to be on anything like as favourable terms for the Nats - that lesson has been learned.


The only really talented non-SNP leader in Scotland is a Tory. So thus she is screwed. Everything I can think of favours an SNP government either when Sturgeon seeks a mandate once she becomes SNP head or when her term comes to an end. It will take time and effort for the unionist parties to rebuild strength and trust in Scotland and when SNP do lose power, it seems unlikely that they will fade away.

Even SNP figures says, bar something major, a referendum won't be asked for quite some time. Sturgeon says at least 15, plenty of others say 20 and I doubt Westminster will give a referendum until then.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 14456
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Scotland Indepdence debate

Unread postby Boydie » Sun Sep 21, 2014 8:25 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:There might be. Falling out of the EU or a UKIP government. :wink: The SNP will be better prepared next time, more then a hint of suspicion that SNP weren't quite prepared when they got to power, but the union also now has time to prepare after this shock. If the union messes this up then Scotland might decide not to give us another chance


UKIP government? Absolutely zero chance of that happening. But I know you were joking ;) UKIP would have 2 MPs max and the Tories are 6 points behind Labour at the moment in the opinion polls. Much more likely to be a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. But… Labour have plenty of time to mess up.

We had a large majority going into the referendum, the SNP started from a very very low base. The three parties did a great job botching the camapign granted but it was hardly incredible we won given we started with such a massive advantage.


Point taken. I personally think if Gordon Brown had led Better Together from the beginning, the final result wouldn’t have been so tight. When nerves were frayed and the Nats on the rise he emerged as if from nowhere to inject the passion, coherence and vision we so badly needed. His speech last Wednesday will stand as one of the greatest any Scotsman has ever delivered.

I’m not discrediting Alistair Darling, he did do a brilliant job. He played his part by laying down the facts, defending his corner and was able to attack the Yes campaign. I personally though he wasn’t as good a speaker as Salmond and wasn’t able to arouse voters the way Salmond or Brown were able to do.


The only really talented non-SNP leader in Scotland is a Tory. So thus she is screwed. Everything I can think of favours an SNP government either when Sturgeon seeks a mandate once she becomes SNP head or when her term comes to an end. It will take time and effort for the unionist parties to rebuild strength and trust in Scotland and when SNP do lose power, it seems unlikely that they will fade away.

Even SNP figures says, bar something major, a referendum won't be asked for quite some time. Sturgeon says at least 15, plenty of others say 20 and I doubt Westminster will give a referendum until then.


I have to disagree DZ, Scotland isn’t the anti Tory wasteland the Nats have painted it to be. It’s a huge opportunity for Ruth Davidson's Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

Mainly in recovering seats like Stirling, Perth and Moray. But also in reaching out to disenchanted urban voters currently vacillating between Labour and the SNP. These votes are up for grabs.

I reckon the Scottish Tories will make big gains in Scotland next year, even if they're losing votes in England, to UKIP or Labour. It's a different dynamic here, and more ground to make up. Somebody earlier was predicting they'd overtake the SNP as Scotland's second party at Westminster (actually, in seats that's still the Lib Dems, but it's the SNP in votes). But the big unknown is whether the SNP can continue to take votes from Labour.

It's a pity the Holyrood election doesn't come first, because I would back the Unionist parties to oust the SNP all over the place. But whatever happens in the General Election next year will shift the dynamic again.

Hopefully, by 2016, Sturgeon will have led them to electoral oblivion. :wink:
User avatar
Boydie
Academic
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:47 pm
Location: In your closet.

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved