Should Scotland be an independent country?

Ayayermaw

glassgirl wrote: »

It's a shame that you only think of this as a battle between Alex Salmond and David Cameron. Both these politicians are mere mortals and the result of this vote will extend far beyond their lifetimes.

Its not about individual politicians or party politics - its about giving meaningful democratic control back to ordinary Scots. Our votes do next to nothing to influence the outcome of UK elections so why would anyone in London bother listening to us?

If we have our own government our votes will carry much more weight so why would you wish to vote against having more control over your elected government?

I think you misunderstood me completely. I agree it's not a debate between Cameron and Salmond - nor is it a debate between Scotland and England but it's a debate in Scotland between those that want to be in the UK and those that don't. I only mentioned the UK political class as a comparison to what we have and what we'll get, should independence happen.

I call it "independence" in a light-hearted sense because that's not really the plan of the Scottish government. They want to keep the same deal as the UK with the EU but that's unlikely to happen - as has been indicated by the Spanish prime minister who will most likely vote against that (it only takes one to vote against us). As it stands 75% of UK laws have been dreamed up by the EU and they are being given more and more power. Eventually there will be no member state governments in the EU and Salmond (read "Scottish government) wants us to jump on board that train.

I'm staying with the UK vote in the hope that the UK Independence party will continue to railroad the main political parties and get us all out of this. Only then would I be happy to consider independence and only then would I do so on the promise that we'd never be fooled into signing our freedom away to some undemocratic bureaucratic empire

Cotta

Will the UK accept Scotland back if/when this little experiment goes wrong?

gm_xone

Ayayermaw wrote: »

You're splitting hairs here but that's what it's come down to.

...


One of the biggest problems of this white paper is that it is heavily dependent on EU membership. The paper guarantees our membership but this was a ridiculously stupid promise to make. We're NOT guaranteed membership. We stand a good chance of becoming members but it wont be on the same terms as we have now. Nevertheless there is absolutely no contingency plan for non EU membership in that document. We're supposed to stupidly take it as a given.

I'm passionately against EU membership but I don't want us to be dumped out of the EU, unplanned - That would be catastrophic.

Either this white paper contains lies or the democratically elected (I presume that gives it more weight over the democratically elected uk gov) Scottish government is staffed by people in no fit state to run a country.

"Personally for me Salmond had his chance..." is what you said.
It's frequently stated by Unionists, that independence for Scotland is a "Salmond vanity project", or Salmond's this, that, and the next. But, see, just like it's not a "Braveheart" thing, or an anti-English thing - it isn't a Salmond thing either. None of that is what Scottish independence is actually about.

The point I was making about a democratically elected Scottish government is, that it is elected by the people of Scotland, and thus is much more representative. The UK government, due to the population share, is elected by the volume of votes outwith Scotland, and so Scotland, more often than not, doesn't get the government it voted for.

In a comparable situation, on your EU point, Scotland could very likely find herself "dumped out of the EU, unplanned" anyway - in a UK In/Out EU referendum.

wiogs

gm_xone wrote: »

In Scotland, an Additional Members [voting] System is used which is designed to produce approximate proportional representation at Holyrood for each region. So, your vote will actually count.

Unlike, as is the case, for Westminster elections, where...
The majority – 53% – of votes cast by the British electorate at the 2010 UK general election were "binned", because they were cast for candidates who didn't win, and are therefore simply worthless in the First Past The Post electoral system.
These are figures for votes "wasted" on each party, ie cast for losing candidates and therefore discarded as worthless by the FPTP system:

Liberal Democrats – 5,596,089 (approximately 82% of all Lib Dem votes)
Labour – 3,600,427 (42%)
Conservative – 3,404,308 (34%)
UKIP – 917,832 (100%)
BNP – 563,743 (100%)
SNP – 403,024 (82%)
Green – 269,378 (94%)
PC – 129,651 (78%)
Sinn Fein – 69,652 (41%)
SDLP – 59,374 (54%)
DUP – 48,981 (29%)
Alliance – 29,923 (70%)
Others – 596,474 (100%)

Total – 15,689,216 (52.9% of total votes cast: 29,653,638)

I am aware of how the voting system in Scotland works.

In as much as I didn't vote for the party in the Scottish government my vote did not count and I don't see any proposed change to the current Scottish system that would alter that. So no extra weight added to my vote.


To be fair though the majority of voters in the last Scottish election did not vote for the SNP

funky83

Cotta wrote: »

Will the UK accept Scotland back if/when this little experiment goes wrong?

Since this Act of Union experiment HAS gone wrong, its time we knocked it on the head. In an independent Scotland if our economy is not going as well as we believe it should then come the next scottish general election we vote another party in. A party that WE voted for unlike the this shower we have now

PollSceptic

I thought you might find this interesting. Copied from a vote no facebook page

"Vote NO to Scottish independence and protect the union shared a link.
17 hours ago
Everyone vote NO on this Money Saving Expert poll "

Ayayermaw

gm_xone wrote: »

"Personally for me Salmond had his chance..." is what you said.
It's frequently stated by Unionists, that independence for Scotland is a "Salmond vanity project", or Salmond's this, that, and the next. But, see, just like it's not a "Braveheart" thing, or an anti-English thing - it isn't a Salmond thing either. None of that is what Scottish independence is actually about.

The point I was making about a democratically elected Scottish government is, that it is elected by the people of Scotland, and thus is much more representative. The UK government, due to the population share, is elected by the volume of votes outwith Scotland, and so Scotland, more often than not, doesn't get the government it voted for.

In a comparable situation, on your EU point, Scotland could very likely find herself "dumped out of the EU, unplanned" anyway - in a UK In/Out EU referendum.

Silly argument is silly. I already explained the use Salmond's name as the representative of the campaign rather than the person. In spite of that you don't seem to want to move away from it. That's a bee in your bonnet that you'll have to deal with on your own from here on.

I get what you're saying about the voting but in that respect I suppose every country in the uk and every county within each country has a reason for independence because they don't get what they want and see themselves as a separate entity from the UK. Having said that here's a positive note - the proposal to scrap the first past the post system under independence is a tick in the box.

Lastly an IN/OUT referendum would result in a planned and structured exit from the EU if OUT was the result. We wouldn't be given the luxury of time come independence day, if a deal hadn't been struck by then.


I suppose we could debate all day. I've done plenty of research and have read the white paper from front to back so I'm confident that on the day I'll be making an informed decision. I hope everyone else does the same and whatever the result we'll accept it and move on

wiogs

funky83 wrote: »

Since this Act of Union experiment HAS gone wrong, its time we knocked it on the head. In an independent Scotland if our economy is not going as well as we believe it should then come the next scottish general election we vote another party in. A party that WE voted for unlike the this shower we have now

You do realise that some of WE would have voted for either of the parties that make up the UK government?

macwomble

You now state..."Our suspicion is there's been an email/social media campaign to get 'yes' votes - so please take this result with a pinch of salt."...This makes the assumption that there has not been an equally orchestrated media campaign on the opposing side. Your logic is woefully flawed, therefore. In addition, somehow even making this comment can, itself, influence the vote and, indeed, makes a travesty of your whole poll.....you should be truly ashamed of such naivety and child-like ineptitude! Stick to finance, maybe...and leave such decisions to the grown-ups.
Proverbial..."stop pres" I just noticed the post above.....
"I thought you might find this interesting. Copied from a vote no facebook page
"Vote NO to Scottish independence and protect the union shared a link.
17 hours ago Everyone vote NO on this Money Saving Expert poll "

Is a that rather a lot of egg I see on your face??????

picardshair

torbrex wrote: »

Youguv all UK survey currently has it 55% no 22% yes with 23% don't know/abstain

And the question in the YouGov poll includes the words "if you were able to vote in the referendum on Scotland's future" So basically they were polling anyone in the UK and not those who would definitely have a vote on referendum day.

If you look at the report itself, 511 out of 1919 identify with the Conservative party, and 47 with the SNP, the Conservatives have 1 seat, the SNP over 60 in Scotland. And only 201 out of 1919 who were asked the question were from Scotland. It is completely biased.