Scottish Independence

Taking part in other forums this 'subsidy junkie' myth keeps coming up. I can't speak for Wales but I know it isn't true for Scotland.

The answer is not so simple. Yes the Nationalists, as a democratic party, will accept the result. BUT, the SNP is not going to go away and will continue its fight for Independence. There won't be a demand for a referendum every year, but it will happen. I think it will be a generational thing: 18 years between 1st devolution referendum and the successful 1997 one; 17 years between it and the Independence referendum, so I would not be surprised if another one was held in 2030-33 IF the 2014 one fails[/quote]

 

Regardless of it been a myth or not it is still believed by many in England and that is what would count if a referendum on English Independence came about. The reality of the situation is if a referendum was held in England today you might get Independence a lot sooner LOL

 

True I think in a recent poll a higher percentage of English people wanted to ditch Scotland than Scottish people wanted to leave.

 

This is the point everyone goes on about Scotland and Wales and NI but they forget that the largest population in these Islands are English LOL what about them and there right to self determination

FREE ENGLAND I SAY LOL

 

During a campaign the true situation would become apparent and the myth belivers would see just how wrong they have been.

If England wants Independence then it is up to them to organise, set up a political party and begin working for it.

 

The trouble is any whiff of English nationalism is strangled at birth with cries of racism and comparisons to the BNP etc.

 

This certainly seems to be the case. The problem is that the setting up and growing of an English National Party would take time - the SNP has been around since 1934 and suffered years in the political wilderness before Winnie Ewing's by-election victory set things off, followed closely by the successful "It's Scotland's Oil" campaign in the 1970s. There then were years of no real growth before the recent resurgence.
My take on support for English Nationalism - as seen in the increase of individuals seeing themselves as English rather than British, flying the flag of St George instead of the Union Jack etc. - is that it lags way behind Nationalism in Scotland & Wales and will mean a lot of hard work to have people from various political backgrounds coalesce around the cause of England: the SNP for instance is a broad church with members and supporters coming from all parts of the political spectrum but, as I said, it took decades to get where it is today.

 

What makes you believe that "the true situation" would become apparent, dont forget that you are talking about English news papers/media here and not Scottish, how many Scottish papers are read south of the border? Sure you will get spots on question time but I hate to say it most folks seem to take what the Sun and the Star say as been bloody gospel LOL
Nah sorry my friend you wont get a fair say from the media, Welsh Independence has been playing since at least 1866 Cymru Fydd (Young Wales) movement was founded then to further the cause .
Then in 79 we had the devolution referendum for a devolved assembly that was defeated 4 to 1 mainly because most people did not fully understand what it meant and the papers played a big part in that.
Even in my own county of Gwynedd (and you dont get more Plaid support than there) it was 60+% against!!

 

If English Nationalism is going to be built on a lie it will only breed hatred. On one hand I could see the papers whipping people into a frenzy but on the other I see social responsibility and the stupidity of papers with Scottish titles - Mail, Express, Sun - saying one thing in England and not mentioning it, or saying the opposite in Scotland. Negativity lost the day in the Scottish Elections, I would hope that English Nationalism would be formed on positive values rather than stoking up hatred of another country.

The Scottish press was totally against the SNP in 2011. That didn't prevent a massive victory. The Sun did come round when the polls began to show the SNP overtaking Labour.

According to Wikipedia this organisation was for 'self government' not Independence. There were similar moves for Home Rule in Scotland and several, unsuccessful bills, were brought before parliament. The Independence party Plaid Cymru was formed in 1925 just 3 years earlier than the National Party of Scotland which in 1934 was to morph into the SNP.

Scotland voted for it but didn't get it.

What about the 76% who voted for more powers last year

 

Look I am not arguing against you getting Independence what I am doing is warning you of what will come, there is a difrence between devolved power and total independence. The game has allready started with Cameron hinting at greater autonomy for Scotland without saying what exactly
Now you have said that Scotland would join the EU do the general Scottish public believe in the EU? simply look at the news reports at the moment about the situation over there with the euro, with Greece claiming Germany is in charge LOL wait until the media starts to play that angle up specialy if things do get worse LOL
I keep saying this good luck to Scotland but dont wear rose tinted specs, the voters can be bought, Cameron can offer them things now what can Alex offer them? a possible better future (with no guarantee?) The reality is he can only surmise what Scotland would be like as a Independent entity, you never actually know until you do it
As for Cymru Fydd dont take everything you read on Wiki as gospel LOL one of my family was involved with them and they wanted Independence but were willing to play the long game

Now lets look at your last statement of 76% voting in favour of more devolved power LOL the turnout for that vote was only 35.2% of those eligable to vote!! hardly a resounding victory
517,132 in favour
297,380 against
Statistics are amazing things that meant that 63.8% of the population coudnt have given a dam either way

Now if you get that sort of result in Scotland there will be those who say "well thats not fair is it" LOL Dont be suprised if someone comes up with the idea of a mandatory vote

 

Fully aware of that

The Tories used this line in 1979, and we got nothing once they won power. The dirty tricks have started

I can't remember seeing a Scottish opinion poll but we certainly seem to be more relaxed about it than you are South of the border. Despite the media hype (Daily Mail etc) withdrawal is not supported by as many people as the euro-sceptics would have us believe, only 49% according to this poll http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/24/eu-referendum-poll-uk-withdrawal

We know full well about Westminster offers which turn to dust. The offer of more powers for instance will have to be fully set out. We won't accept it on face value. We won't be taken in again (hopefully )

The 76% referred to your county of Gwynedd which had a turnout of 43%. You'll always get a sizeable %age who don't bother voting.

 

Sure there is a sizable group who wont vote and this is one of the drawbacks when you ask for Independence, let us assume that you get it with a majority vote but a low turn out! that then leaves room for those apposed to question if you in fact do have the majority of the country behind you.

Now as for the Tory promises back in 79 unfortunatly again you did not get the required % numbers out to vote
40% of the actual electorate was required but the turnout was only some 60+% out of that number you got just over 51% in favour (about 33%) and that ruling was made under the Labour goverment just prior to Thatcher taking over, as the SNP withdrew support from Labour and a election resulted (You can blame George Cunningham a Scottish born English Labour MP who came up with the formula LOL)

The SNP needs to start laying out what it intends for the future of Scotland now, they have had years to plan for this moment so dont waste it by waiting till the last moment before setting out your stall for the punters

Ah my numbers was for Wales as a whole, shame to see such a small turn out in a very Nationalist area though

 

You're right, but it will be sorted out before the vote is held. In 1995 Quebec returned a 50.6% to 49.4% No to separation result. There was some dispute surrounding rejected ballot papers but nothing major. I wonder what the reaction of the state would have been had the result went the other way? I note that there was a turnout of over 90% in Quebec, I would think there would be a high turnout in Scotland but nowhere near that figure. As for a low turnout, I believe the result should stand.

The promise was that they would bring in some, unspecified, measure of devolution IF the Scots voted no to the Labour proposals. Well, because of the 40% rule we lost BUT the Tories did not deliver. Once Bitten Twice shy as the saying goes. Cameron will have to spell out his plans.

yes, know all that.

Sure, the SNP withdrew support from Labour. The reason we did not get our parliament was not just down to Cunningham, other anti devolutionists including Neil Kinnock vowed to vote against the party if the measure was to go through. Hence the acceptance of the undemocratic 40% rule and the failure of the Callaghan govt. to accept the Yes vote. There was some discrepancy with the voters roll which didn't help achieve the 40% limit. This from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979#.22Scotland_Said_Yes.22

 

I have to ask you what is undemocratic about wanting to have a minimum of 40% of the population in support of a measure? to be quite honest the democratic version would be anything over 50% of the entire population After all this is something that will have a affect on everyone in Scotland and even those in the rest of the United Kingdom! Anything less is rule by a minority and that can lead to trouble further down the line
For this to work you have to persuade at least 80 to 90% of those eligable to vote to get out there and vote that way you get a mandate from the Majority, you can not simply impose your will upon them after all that is what you are trying to get away from

Sure you might know what I am talking about but you have to remember that we are on a forum populated by Americans in the main who will not be as aware as you or I (hence spelling it out so to speak)
I see the messiah (J Clarkson of top gear fame, has pontificated on the issue in the sun LOL If you get a chance have a read)

 

Yep, (we) have no clue lol ...so I do appreciate the info.

 

LOL unfortunately many over here don't have a clue either

 

What other measure had a 40% threshold applied, certainly the 1997 referendum didn't. We would have been a country run by a series of coalitions if this rule applied to General Elections. I note low turnouts are also a problem in the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections I see that since 1972 no Presidential election has had a turnout of over 60% with 1996 falling below 50% - and that is in elections to elect perhaps the most powerful politician in the world. Voter apathy is a problem but either you apply a threshold for everything or forget about it. The Unionists are saying that it is wrong, for instance, to allow 16 & 17 year olds to vote in the referendum as it would be a one off. The same should apply to any idea of a 40% limit (or any other figure you care to suggest)

As I said I would expect a large turnout. Only in 1950 and 1951 has there been a turnout above 80%. So, this level may be difficult to achieve. People on the electoral register have the chance to vote, If they decide not to they can have no comeback if they don't like the outcome.
We are not trying to force our will on anyone, we will be out to persuade.

 

Speaking of racisms who wrote that bitter line, "fee fi fo from I smell the blood of an Englishman..." that whole grinding bones into bread or something is really quite shocking. Was it a Scott. I heard Shakespeare used to go around saying it as well pretending he was King Lear. Nasty, did not know he was Scottish. Excuse me if I am wrong for it just might be the Viking in me speaking.

 

Difference between a election and Independence is you can change the govarment/President every 4 to 5 years, you cant in 4 to 5 years suddenly decide to change Independence so yes my argument stands

You can make voting compulsory they do so in many countries, as for 16 and 17 year olds my view on that is they should be allowed to vote

 

There was no threshold for the 1975 UK European Referendum, no threshold for the Quebec secession referendum, no threshold for the 1997 devolution referendum. A simple majority is the denocratic way and this should happen in the Scottish Independence Referendum.
So, the election of governments/presidents make no difference? What about the Iraq war; the, ultimately futile, Vietnam war; or even good things such as the formation of the Welfare State in the UK etc.
You can force people to the polling station but you have no control of what they do with the ballot paper. I wonder how much spoiled votes there are in Australian elections.
16 year olds can join the armed forces and get married so it seems ridiculous they are prevented from voting.