A Yes vote means better jobs for young people in Scotland

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I think we're getting carried away here. Unsurprisingly in journalism, the headlines and content don't quite match.

These surveys show two things:
that pre-devolution, in 1999, 800 people agreed that many Scots were racists without quantifying how many. If two-thirds said many Scots had red hair, that wouldn't make most Scots red-haired. Good sample size, non-quantified question.

In 2003 almost 100 primary school kids in an all-white village 30 miles from Glasgow were questioned whether they'd vote an English person into the Scottish parliament. 1/3 said they wouldn't. However in 2011 when they were old enough to vote, they're voting in English MSPs in numbers proportional to their population (well at least the SNP voters are).

Interesting question, ridiculous sample size. The study's authors explicity say it's too small for statistical significance, and considering the overwhelmingly urban nature of the Scottish population, it's not necessarily a representative sample.

So yes I am concerned because any anti-English prejudice is too much, but these surveys don't prove such problems are currently widespread or growing. They seem to show that immature people show prejudices yet when they are mature enough to vote they seem to have shed those prejudices.

I'm sure the bias of the 11-12 years olds in the survey is real, but I fail to see how this translates into the election results of 2011 where the public voted in many English SNP MSPs who stand for the end of London rule. How anyone can see this as blood- and soil nationalism driven by racism rather than civic nationalism driven by disillusionment with a remote government is beyond me.

do tell me that the dates of the referendum and the anniversary of Bannockburn is purely a co-incidence.

.string.

It seems to be the lot of some nations to attract "hated"; one can't help feeling if a little bit of national insecurity and economic jealousy has something to do with it. I suspect the ancient Brits disliked the Romans, in common with most at the time. Mind you the odd massacre didn't help.

Same with the English, now the Americans - next the Chinese? It comes and goes with the gaining and waning of national fortunes.

In the context of the Scottish referendum it's clear that the SNP has stoked that particular fire; protestations of future everlasting friendship afterwards can be taken with a rather large piece of salt, or discarded with a large dose of vinegar.

So I agree with what Generalis has said; damage has been done. And it will hurt worse as Scottish voices get shriller and shriller.

Should the vote be Yes (it looks unlikely at present), then this is one Englishman who will interpret that as a general endorsement of what Salmond has been teaching, and Scotland will get the neighbours they have voted against.

Should the vote be No, that's a puzzle. In time the rift may heal, but something will have been lost for a while. The best one can hope for is a substantial NO.

Thrugelmir

.string. wrote: »

Should the vote be No, that's a puzzle. In time the rift may heal, but something will have been lost for a while. The best one can hope for is a substantial NO.

What if it's a Yes vote with less than 40% turnout.

Is there a sufficient mandate to change the course of history?

.string.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What if it's a Yes vote with less than 40% turnout.

Is there a sufficient mandate to change the course of history?

The SNP decided the format, and participation, for the vote, so they'll have to live with the result.

But I agree that a decision of a change of this magnitude for a country should have a substantial threshold to avoid troubles within. What "substantial" means is a debate in itself.

Leanne1812

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What if it's a Yes vote with less than 40% turnout.

Is there a sufficient mandate to change the course of history?

Quite simply the most votes wins. If people cannot be bothered to vote then they must accept the outcome. This vote is monumental and I believe it's estimated at least 70% turnout, hopefully more. So, scots seem to be taking an interest and making an effort which is good. I'm a Yes voter but as I say to friends we're having a party regardless of the outcome and we shall move on like rational grown ups do. This is democracy and we should all accept the will of the people.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

The SNP decided the format, and participation, for the vote, so they'll have to live with the result.

But I agree that a decision of a change of this magnitude for a country should have a substantial threshold to avoid troubles within. What "substantial" means is a debate in itself.

Been there, done that, sussed it out as being a way to get even the dead to count as NO voters. This will be decided by those who are alive, living with the consequences and who can be bothered to tick a bit of paper. Not by non-residents like me, or those who don't care enough to show up.

IveSeenTheLight

Two very sensible posts (only samples them to keep the post smaller)
Thank you both of you

zagubov wrote: »

Interesting question, ridiculous sample size. The study's authors explicity say it's too small for statistical significance, and considering the overwhelmingly urban nature of the Scottish population, it's not necessarily a representative sample.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

I'm Scottish and my husband is English. He's lived in Scotland for over 25 years and only very occasionally has he come across anti English feeling. Usually it's football related and he takes it as banter.

BillJones

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Bills can it not be true that some scots hate the English and some English hate the scots? I believe there's a bit of anti on both sides....

I have no idea what nationality you are but can I ask have you encountered this personally?

I'm Northumbrian, and so am in the interesting position of having many Scots think that I'm on "their side" on the question of the "other" English (you know, the ones down South), and therefore them being very willing to hold forth about how they view my countrymen.

For some reason plenty are all too keen to tell me, in great detail, just how they view "the rest" of the nation.

It seems, in my experience of course, far from a rare outlook. In comparison, I've pretty much never heard an Englishman offer an opinion on how they view the Scots.

Pincher

It's looking like 50-50 if you believe the polls.


Let us say it ends up 51% vs 49%, it means HALF the population has to do what the other half says.


For something like this, I would have thought you need an overwhelming majority in favour, either way. All the hassle, which directly translates into time and money, present and future, and HALF the population don't want it?

BillJones

Pincher wrote: »

Let us say it ends up 51% vs 49%, it means HALF the population has to do what the other half says.

In this case we should just partition it. Give the nationalists the North, and the rest the South and central areas. That way everyone's happy.