[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote.

Where does that argument stop though?

you only need to look at the Scottish parliament election results for 2011

[img] [/img]

Where is the political representation for those in the blue bits? Can they not rightfully claim that their vote does not have any value because its outnumbered by Labour and the SNP? How about them up in the Orange bits? Are they being denied democracy?

Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what [u]you[/u] want?

Are you suggesting that the people in that poll are stupid? Because that's the only possibility I can see for people thinking that the death penalty is sometimes the most appropriate sentence, but that we shouldn't have the death penalty.

No, but can you not see that they're different questions?

If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing, but as you can't ever get that situation then no, I wouldn't want a death penalty.

with independence, we can get rid of those horrific weapons of mass destruction, and spend the money on helping people not trying to kill them.

I can't believe people are naive enough to think this is the case. iScotland isn't suddenly going to become some hippy dippy place, it will still have a military, it will certainly train alongside rUKs military and they will support and fight together. I'm pretty certain that even if an iScotland had existed 15 years ago their troops would have been committed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

No, but can you not see that they're different questions?

If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing, but as you can't ever get that situation then no, I wouldn't want a death penalty.

So, you'd have no problem with putting it to a referendum I take it?

So, you'd have no problem with putting it to a referendum I take it?

No problem at all if it was in a party manifesto. The people get what the people want. That how it works.

Where is the political representation for those in the blue bits? Can they not rightfully claim that their vote does not have any value because its outnumbered by Labour and the SNP? How about them up in the Orange bits? Are they being denied democracy?

Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what you want?

We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.

FFS, If "all of these guys" were evenly vaguely delivering on what they promised, half the threads on the chat forum would be redundant. Farrage will claim that he is representing people, and he is. And thanks to the beauty of freedom of speech, he is able to demonstrate how ridiculous many of his comments are, and how inaccurate the supposed facts that he uses to supported them are as well. Ditto with the deceitful one. And people should be free to point out the absurdities as they see fit.

So we recently had the debate between Clegg and Farage that was supposedly based on the facts not the people. It was perhaps fitting, that both chose to adopt a relatively "liberal" interpretation of facts!

Given his excellent academic background, perhaps I expect too much from AS? He certainly does disappoint though and pretty much on a daily basis in this context. As Duckman said, you need stamina not to be worn down by it.

[quote=whatnobeer ]No, but can you not see that they're different questions?

Maybe, but only a pedant would suggest you can have one without the other.

If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing

Well clearly you have a different view on the death penalty than I (and a lot of people opposed to it) do then. You're a man of the people.

Sorry, is that if a referendum on the death sentence was in a party manifesto, or if the death sentence was in a party manifesto?

Why try and impose party political qualifications on your precious Democracy - how about the Swiss method, where a significant petition launches a right to a binding referendum?

Thats real Democracy! Why would you be afraid of it?

(I think I know why 😉 )

FFS, If "all of these guys" were evenly vaguely delivering on what they promised, half the threads on the chat forum would be redundant. Farrage will claim that he is representing people, and he is. And thanks to the beauty of freedom of speech, he is able to demonstrate how ridiculous many of his comments are, and how inaccurate the supposed facts that he uses to supported them are as well. Ditto with the deceitful one. And people should be free to point out the absurdities as they see fit.

You're doing it again THM. Comparing Farrage and AS is a weak attempt to discredit him. As is your constant use of your pet name for him. It does you no favours. Can you not see that there's a huge difference between a party that makes clear its aims in its manifesto then works to deliver it manifesto once elected? Especially given that fact that AS has a mandate for the agenda he is pushing.

Well clearly you have a different view on the death penalty than I (and a lot of people opposed to it) do then. You're a man of the people.

Meh, it was a hypothetical. Personally I'm opposed to ever killing other humans, but if a party was to put that in their manifesto, get elected then put out a referendum on the issue that's just them doing their job. I'd vote against but that's not the point.

Sorry, is that if a referendum on the death sentence was in a party manifesto, or if the death sentence was in a party manifesto?

Why try and impose party political qualifications on your precious Democracy - how about the Swiss method, where a significant petition launches a right to a binding referendum?

Thats real Democracy! Why would you be afraid of it?

(I think I know why )

Either I guess. I wouldn't vote for anyone pushing it, but that's just me.

Personally I don't find the Swiss model all that helpful. It may seem a good idea, but turnouts tend to be low and at a guess I would assume having referenda on everything would add significant cost and expense to governing the country.

Why do you think the question of democracy for the Scots needs powerful arguments?

Surely the concept of democracy stands on its own feet?

Apparently not. Every single opinion poll, as far as I'm aware of, has shown the Yes camp to represent a minority point of view. I have seen no evidence to show this to be grossly inaccurate.

The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote.

But you have failed to convince "most Scots" so far.

If the case presented by the Yes camp is so overwhelming and needs so little explaining then why with only 6 months to go, ffs, don't the overwhelming majority of Scots support it ?

Now personally I think that Yes Scotland will [i]probably[/i] win on the day, but no one knows for sure. One thing we can absolutely sure about is that there is not, and there won't be, overwhelming support for independence, despite the people of Scotland literally having had their entire lives to think about it.

Why is that, if the case is so watertight and needs so little explaining ?

.

And btw your claim that this is all just about democracy falls seriously short. Firstly the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before - lack of confidence and satisfaction in politicians and their ability to respond to the needs of the people is not a uniquely Scottish phenomenon, it exists in all countries with simular systems of governments.

Secondly, far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement.

And finally I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

I'm all in favour in self-governing autonomous societies but I don't see how voting yes in September will be a step in that direction.

[quote=seosamh77 ]We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.

I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, but in any case, I thought the argument was "The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote." - well looking at the general election result, 61% of Scottish voters voted Labour or LibDem, and they have 315 out of 650 seats in parliament. ISTM that the Scottish voters have far more power in the UK parliament than the Southern Scots do in the Scottish parliament.

ninfan - Member
"The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote."
Where does that argument stop though?

you only need to look at the Scottish parliament election results for 2011

You'll always get that, but by bringing the govt closer to home it's more likely to work for you.

Anyhow, the Conservatives in Scotland expect to do quite well out of independence. Their current low standing is because the electorate has never forgiven Thatcher and the "nasty party". After independence they start with a clean slate and will be able to stand on their own merits. Don't be surprised to see them in a coalition govt in Scotland.

[url= http://www.wealthynation.org ]Conservatives for independence[/url]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what you want?

Ditto with the deceitful one

[quote=whatnobeer ]Personally I'm opposed to ever killing other humans

Oh, so "If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing" was just a "negotiating position" then? 😀

piemonster - Member

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

Still no overwhelming support for Scottish independence eh ?

Not yet, but the gap is narrowing

ernie_lynch - Member
...Apparently not. Every single opinion poll, as far as I'm aware of, has shown the Yes camp to represent a minority point of view. I have seen no evidence to show this to be grossly inaccurate....

Since returning to Scotland 10 years ago, just about every pre election poll I have seen has forecast disaster for the SNP.

Yet somehow they keep increasing their vote. Makes one question whether there may be a teeny bit of bias in the poll mongers, or if they are simply incompetent.

There is only one poll that counts, and that's the ballot box.

Democracy, a wonderful thing.

[quote=epicyclo ]Democracy, a wonderful thing.

Ah, so [b]you[/b]'re in favour of the death penalty.

Still no overwhelming support for Scottish independence eh ?

That Lord BS of eck, despite THM's constant criticism, seems to be doing rather better than the No campaign what with increasing his support whilst their reduces.

Will it be enough not yet but at the vote who knows?

Not yet, but the gap is narrowing

The gap is narrowing that's why come September I think Yes Scotland will [i]probably[/i] win.

But tell me...... why is that up until now less than half of all Scots have been convinced that independence is a good idea ?

Personally I would have thought that if it was such a good idea, and more importantly doesn't even need explaining, that a huge majority of Scots, I dunno - two thirds ? would support it.

All is not as it seems.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, but in any case, I thought the argument was "The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote." - well looking at the general election result, 61% of Scottish voters voted Labour or LibDem, and they have 315 out of 650 seats in parliament. ISTM that the Scottish voters have far more power in the UK parliament than the Southern Scots do in the Scottish parliament.

That may not change in an IS, I know, but if it is going to change to it'd be much easier in a smaller grouping.

Essentially the belief is that the smaller the democratic grouping, the more democratic it will be, potentially*

*i understand politicians being ****s will still be prevalent in an IS, but it'll be easier to chase them.

That's the crux of the matter for me tbh. Nothing to do with nationalism, which I dislike. To sum up, imo westminster is democratically bankrupt, time for a change.

Democracy, a wonderful thing

Is it? Like currency options, it has pros and cons. Unlike a CU between iS and rUK, democracy is better than the alternatives but it is far from perfect or wonderful. There is always the danger that the views of the majority will rule roughshod over those of the minority. Have we heard that concern somewhere....?

1. the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before....

2. ... far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement...

3. .....I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

Blimey its nice, if rare, to be able to go +1 Ernie!!

I would have thought that if it was such a good idea, and more importantly doesn't even need explaining, that a huge majority of Scots, I dunno - two thirds ? would support it.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Well that's fairly easy to reconcile, we don't particularly believe westminster politicians represent anyone bar business.
that's may not change in an IS i know, but if it is going to change to it'd be much easier in a smaller grouping.
Essentially they belief is that the smaller the democratic grouping the more democratic is has potential*
*i understand politicians being **** will still be prevalent in an IS, but it'll be easier to chase them.

I certainly admire your optimism in the face of reality.

But tell me...... why is that up until now less than half of all Scots have been convinced that independence is a good idea ?

More than half are "better informed" and/or have actually read the BoD, perhaps?

This works just as well as a "question" re the Union

I was asked :

Why do you think the question of democracy for the Scots needs powerful arguments?

Surely the concept of democracy stands on its own feet?

The evidence suggests this is not the case.

1. the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before....

2. ... far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement...

3. .....I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

You have no evidence what so ever of points 1 and 2 and 3 is exactly what the current system looks like, but with Scottish interests being represented by the UK who don't really have much interested in keeping us happy. Just look at how pissed off out fisherman have been with the UK Government at their fishing rights negotiations.

Oh, so "If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing" was just a "negotiating position" then?

I chuckled, but, it was a hypothetical as I said, not representing my own views.

More than half are "better informed", perhaps?

More than half are scared of change no matter what it might bring? More than half enjoy clinging on to the past?

I honestly can't believe the idea from some here that an iScotland would have [b]too much democracy[/b]. 🙄

aracer - Member
I certainly admire your optimism in the face of reality.

I'm well aware that it won't happen overnight, but I also believe that if democracy stands still, it ultimately becomes undemocratic. So my long term hope(and I know that's all that they are) is that there could be innovation in the democratic structures under an IS.

The argument for me isn't about specifics or details that I'm continually told are supposedly important, it's very much about what ifs.

More than half are scared of change no matter what it might bring? More than half enjoy clinging on to the past?

You need to come up with some powerful arguments 💡

This democracy everyone talks about, doesn't exist does it, it really means 'middle class swing voters'. The irony of the SNP quote in that Scotsman poll article, is that he mentions Westminster only appeals to 'Middle England' swing voters, yet look at the independence polling and the demographic that the SNP needs to be convinced to vote Yes is you guess it the Scottish Middle classes.

You need to come up with some powerful arguments

True, but there are some people who you'll never convince. Look over at the majority of people going to Ibrox every other weekend. There's not many of them (or not many will admit it anyway) who will vote Yes and as a rule they hate AS and love the Union. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I do think that you're right though. Lots of people want more powers and bigger voice but are either don't think independence s the way to do it because of the risk involved, some because of the cost involved and others are just a bit apathetic.

Apathy may prove the deciding factor

piemonster - Member
Apathy may prove the deciding factor

[quote=seosamh77 ]I'm well aware that it won't happen overnight, but I also believe that if democracy stands still, it ultimately becomes undemocratic. So my long term [b]hope[/b](and I know that's all that they are) is that there could be innovation in the democratic structures under an IS.
The argument for me isn't about specifics or details that I'm continually told are supposedly important, [b]it's very much about what ifs[/b].

What a persuasive argument for independence.

Once again, it amazes me how many people on here seem against the whole idea of democracy.

[quote=whatnobeer ]I honestly can't believe the idea from some here that an iScotland would have too much democracy.

You seem to have missed the thrust of the recent argument on here, that the problem isn't one of [b]too much[/b] democracy with iS.

[quote=epicyclo ]Once again, it amazes me how many people on here seem against the whole idea of democracy.

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that those pointing out iS will have less democracy are anti democracy?

aracer - Member

What a persuasive argument for independence.

I would go into them, but to be honest, youse are all far too anal on here to have a conversation like that.

You seem to have missed the thrust of the recent argument on here, that the problem isn't one of too much democracy with iS.

It was from someone with all the "so you support the death penalty" type stuff.

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings. At the same time though we get a more representative government and we get rid of the unelected House of Lords. Doesn't sound like less democracy to me.

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings.

Hardly makes for '[i]a more representative government'[/i]

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu

Apathy may prove the deciding factor

If Scotland votes yes then it really needs to decisive. If Better Together scraps in then nothing much will happen (other than possibly devo max if Labour are returned in Westminster) and everyone will stay calm and carry on and the whole issue will not be raised again for a very long time.

If Yes Scotland scraps in then it will be a nightmare for the Scottish government as they try to negotiate without a clear, unambiguous, and decisive mandate. Add to this the fact that will have to carry with them the goodwill of almost half of the electorate that didn't vote for independence, and those who did that will understandably have high expectations, and you have a very messy situation fraught with some very serious problems.

An overwhelming Yes vote would at least give the Scottish government the excuse that whatever problems might arise they will simply be carrying out the clear wishes of the Scottish people and therefore ultimately aren't to blame.

whatnobeer - Member

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings. At the same time though we get a more representative government and we get rid of the unelected House of Lords. Doesn't sound like less democracy to me.

These islands would also get more representation in the European parliament with 2 states.