Should Scotland be an independent country?

funky83

wiogs wrote: »

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

I think you will find that since 1955 scotland has had a government for 36yrs that it has not voted for. And the simple answer to that is we have different social priorities up here than New South Britain. Take the bedroom tax for example , 88% of scottish mps voted against that bill at Westminster but what do we get. I understand down south has Its priorities and therefore immigration gets thrusted into the media spotlight every 5mins, but that just lends towards my argument that we are different nations with different social agendas and different idealism in achieving our way. We will still be friends. But equal

Mike_Duggan

wiogs wrote: »

In as much as I didn't vote for the party in the Scottish government my vote did not count

Yes it did. You clearly don't understand how AMS works.

If you voted for a party other than the SNP and an SNP member was elected in your constituency, your vote still counted, because the number of votes cast for the losing candidates influenced who got the regional seats in that area.

Broadly speaking, if a party gets more constituency seats it gets fewer regional ones, in order to better reflect the balance of votes cast. That's the entire point of proportional electoral systems.

In FPTP, a party could theoretically get 20 million votes in the UK and zero seats, if they lost every constituency by one vote. That can't happen with PR, because every vote DOES count even if you don't win the constituency seat.

ryannipper

As a Scotsman, I voted in faour of independence in the poll for a number of reasons, however I think it is emabrrassing to see the snidey, spiteful, sarcasitc and obnoxious posts from both sides that have appeared aboe, just like in every other poll and post I've seen about the independence vote on various other forums.

Personally, I'm not too bothered how people vote, as long as they've taken the time to inform themselves of both sides of the argument and have come to areasoned decision based on that. The rhetoric and vitriol I've seen from both sides is mind-numbing, and obscures the point that this vote, whatever the result, is historic and monumental.

The fact that we now have the opportunity to make a decision is huge, and I really hope it leads to an engaged electorate in future.

FWIW, most people who post about it have made their minds up long ago one way or anothe,r so arguing with them isn't going to change their mind; it also makes you look childish and petty.

wiogs

funky83 wrote: »

I think you will find that since 1955 scotland has had a government for 36yrs that it has not voted for. And the simple answer to that is we have different social priorities up here than New South Britain. Take the bedroom tax for example , 88% of scottish mps voted against that bill at Westminster but what do we get. I understand down south has Its priorities and therefore immigration gets thrusted into the media spotlight every 5mins, but that just lends towards my argument that we are different nations with different social agendas and different idealism in achieving our way. We will still be friends. But equal

You missed my point completely.

I was referring to the fact that the previous poster implied that "WE" would not vote for either the Tories or the Lib Dems. This is incorrect. "WE" do.

Many people of course do not but to suggest that "WE" all do one thing is just rubbish.

Some voters in Scotland will have voted for those parties that have been elected to govern the UK since 1955 so another sweeping erroneous generalisation.

And where is this "New South Britain" of which you speak?

wiogs

Mike_Duggan wrote: »

Yes it did. You clearly don't understand how AMS works.

If you voted for a party other than the SNP and an SNP member was elected in your constituency, your vote still counted, because the number of votes cast for the losing candidates influenced who got the regional seats in that area.

Broadly speaking, if a party gets more constituency seats it gets fewer regional ones, in order to better reflect the balance of votes cast. That's the entire point of proportional electoral systems.

In FPTP, a party could theoretically get 20 million votes in the UK and zero seats, if they lost every constituency by one vote. That can't happen with PR, because every vote DOES count even if you don't win the constituency seat.

And how will my vote have more weight in an independent Scotland?

My vote did not have any effect on who got the regional seat either.

Edit - rephrase that. No person I voted for got a regional seat.

lindsaycom

picardshair wrote: »

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.

Thank you Picardshair, that saved me trying to find where that ridiculous statistic was hiding on the internet.

I've got an idea just as silly. When rUK vote to stay in the EC then we will ask everyone in Europe (including scots) what their views are. :rotfl:

wiogs

picardshair wrote: »

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.

Imagine if MSE did something so stupid

gm_xone

Ayayermaw wrote: »

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

I know what you said about Salmond, but though directing my reply in your direction, I was more making the point in a general sense for anyone else reading - because wherever and whenever his name is mentioned in relation to independence, there are, as you will no doubt be aware, many who believe Salmond and independence are the one and the same thing.

TBH, not sure why a UK exit from the EU would be "planned and structured" on an EU Out result, but Scottish EU "entry" negotiations couldn't be equally constructive and concluded within an 18-month timescale in the event of a Yes vote in the independence referendum - Scotland would remain part of the UK, and thus in the EU in the interim, until "independence day".

FWIW, I think every country currently part of the UK should return to being independent. (parts of each country declaring independence?, ehm no!). The political union that is the UK, has had it's day - it's just a matter of time now.

And yes, we could debate for forever and a day . What's important though, is that people do proper research for themselves, and not just simply believe what they see on TV or read in the newspapers.

gm_xone

Mike_Duggan wrote: »

Yes it did. You clearly don't understand how AMS works.

If you voted for a party other than the SNP and an SNP member was elected in your constituency, your vote still counted, because the number of votes cast for the losing candidates influenced who got the regional seats in that area.

Broadly speaking, if a party gets more constituency seats it gets fewer regional ones, in order to better reflect the balance of votes cast. That's the entire point of proportional electoral systems.

In FPTP, a party could theoretically get 20 million votes in the UK and zero seats, if they lost every constituency by one vote. That can't happen with PR, because every vote DOES count even if you don't win the constituency seat.

Indeed. Even Ruth Davidson - Scottish [sic] Conservative leader - who came 4th in the Glasgow Kelvin constituency, was elected because she was on the Glasgow regional list.

patnadunty

Didn't take long for the cybernats to hog the poll. However the only result that matters is that of the actual vote. They can manipulate all they want. It's frustrating to hear people from the other nations within the UK believing that ALL of the people in Scotland want independence wait for the result and judge for yourself. I believe Scotland could be an Independent Country but at what cost? How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to be able have a Scottish passport? What sort of Independence will it be when Brussels are calling the shots with our laws and the Bank of England calling the shots with our Interest rates and budgets? or are these ready made scapegoats for the Scottish Government when they can't fulfill their promises? I look forward to the referendum and more polls that see the YES campaign winning all you are doing is lighting a fire under the Complacent and Apathetic Unionist voter. I was Born under a Union Flag and I intend to die under it and being a veteran Buried under it. The Union I will fight to maintain.