Give British People the vote

[ronmcd]

BTW ronmcd... I like the cut of your jib.

Did I give you permission to use my Facebook profile pic??

[HomerJay]

The was an article on bbc about poll asked would you vote for independence if you were £1,000 a year better off, majority said yes, £250 better off? Majority said no.

[ronmcd]

The was an article on bbc about poll asked would you vote for independence if you were £1,000 a year better off, majority said yes, £250 better off? Majority said no.

65% for independence if £500 better off; 25% against
21% for independence if £500 worse off; 66% against
46% for independence if standard of living unchanged; 32% against
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16024399

[mistermack]

On the question of the vote :
We already see that the Nationalists want a loaded question : "do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country". Whereas a fairer question, and more honest question would be "do you wish for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK".

But what majority should be seen as a mandate?
I keep hearing "if the people of Scotland vote for it". But what proportion of the people of Scotland?
If only one in three Scottish voters vote to leave the UK, is that a proper mandate?
Because if the turnout isn't overwhelming, one in three voters might be enough.
On a seventy percent turnout, a 51% win would only be about 36% of the voters.

Is something like that a real mandate? I think you need a clear decisive majority for a constitutional issue like that.

[JimC]

Let's face it the Scots will vote for Independence because they think Braveheart was history ,they would probably vote Mel Gibson in as King unless a 'smear' campaign was started to explain he's actually an Aussie . And they can't blame the blue noses anymore since they went broke so that will be it Scotland the brave and Mel Gibson as King .

They could vote to be a northern state of Australia,,,

We need a sally-port in the northern hemisphere..

[ronmcd]

On the question of the vote :
We already see that the Nationalists want a loaded question : "do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country". Whereas a fairer question, and more honest question would be "do you wish for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK".

No, thats not a fairer question. The only problem theoretically with "do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country" is it is proposing a positive as if agreement is the natural result, which supposedly returns a marginally higher yes vote than asking "should Scotland be an independent country, yes or no".

Your proposed question is even worse though, it uses what is universally seen in Scotland as a pejorative term "separation". Similar to your last attempt, "partition", lol. The word is independence. 4th of July, US .... Separation day? Partition day? Lol.

But what majority should be seen as a mandate?
I keep hearing "if the people of Scotland vote for it". But what proportion of the people of Scotland?
If only one in three Scottish voters vote to leave the UK, is that a proper mandate?
Because if the turnout isn't overwhelming, one in three voters might be enough.
On a seventy percent turnout, a 51% win would only be about 36% of the voters.

Is something like that a real mandate? I think you need a clear decisive majority for a constitutional issue like that.

And exactly the same argument can be used, but never is, for any vote. It's is ONLY EVER used as an argument when someone has proposed something YOU don't agree with. Of the people who can be bothered to vote in the referendum, a majority will be needed. Simples.

[MrJonno]

In a democracy if you don't vote you don't count which seems reasonable to me through I do see a good anti-libertarian pro society case for compulsory voting

[JimC]

In a democracy if you don't vote you don't count which seems reasonable to me through I do see a good anti-libertarian pro society case for compulsory voting

I'm perfectly happy with compulsory voting in Oz...

[Clinton Huxley]

There should be 2 questions on the referendum:-

1) Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?
2) If "Yes", will you stop blaming the English for everything bad that happens?

[mistermack]

On the question of the vote :
We already see that the Nationalists want a loaded question : "do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country". Whereas a fairer question, and more honest question would be "do you wish for Scotland to separate from the rest of the UK".

No, thats not a fairer question. The only problem theoretically with "do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country" is it is proposing a positive as if agreement is the natural result, which supposedly returns a marginally higher yes vote than asking "should Scotland be an independent country, yes or no".

Your proposed question is even worse though, it uses what is universally seen in Scotland as a pejorative term "separation". Similar to your last attempt, "partition", lol. The word is independence. 4th of July, US .... Separation day? Partition day? Lol.

But what majority should be seen as a mandate?
I keep hearing "if the people of Scotland vote for it". But what proportion of the people of Scotland?
If only one in three Scottish voters vote to leave the UK, is that a proper mandate?
Because if the turnout isn't overwhelming, one in three voters might be enough.
On a seventy percent turnout, a 51% win would only be about 36% of the voters.

Is something like that a real mandate? I think you need a clear decisive majority for a constitutional issue like that.

And exactly the same argument can be used, but never is, for any vote. It's is ONLY EVER used as an argument when someone has proposed something YOU don't agree with. Of the people who can be bothered to vote in the referendum, a majority will be needed. Simples.

None of that is true. "independent" is a flattering term. Everyone would like to be described as independent. I like to think of myself as independent. But I'm not. And neither Scotland nor England will actually be independent. We will still be interdependent. You mention the 4th July. The US is one of the few countries that could regard itself as independent (at the time). But of course, it's a Union of interdependent states. Even your selected example is rubbish.

Separation might be pejorative to you, ( whatever that means ) but it's the truth, it's reality. Political separation.
You can call separation independence, but it doesn't make it so.

The truth is that afterwards, Scotland will be politically separate from the UK. It won't be independent.
Is the truth not good enough?

The wording as it stands is good for at least 5% extra among the undecided, over a more truthful question.

On the question of the majority, it's your fault that I pointed it out.
Because you keep saying " if the Scottish people vote for independence " when you know full well that only SOME of the Scottish people will be enough. You don't say, if a majority vote for it in a ballot.
If "the Scottish People" have to decide on independence, then go ahead, and good luck with it.

As far as I'm concerned, if only 35% vote for separation, then a later Government would have every right to ballot again, asking the electorate to reverse it.
I actually think there should be a minimum turnout set. Because generally, people who don't vote are not in favour of change.
Or compulsory voting would of course be much better.

[ronmcd]

Astonishing how noone objects to Westminister governments which are elected on only 60% turnout. The referendum in 1997 to setup the Scottish Parliament was the same, 60% or similar. But that same system is not good enough now mistermack?

On the word independent, do you consider UK independent from France? Yes. Yes, you do. Despite both being interdependent to a degree. Every country is. But policy is decided independently by the different countries, and that is the reason people want independence, to have control of everything they can rather than leaving many (often unpopular) policies and spending decisions to Westminister. Note that even when a policy is devolved, Scotland is affected by UK policy for England, eg health or education, because when a Tory govt reduces spending in England in a desire to pull more private companies into the sector, Scotlands budget is affected in a similar way, "consequentials", even though we are following utterly different policies. The more things diverge, the worse the problems with devolution, and the more independence will seem attractive.

So yes, the word is independence.

But it's all irrelevant, actually. When the AV referendum was run last year, there was what ... 2 or 3 weeks of backstabbing and what could very loosely be called "campaigning" in which period the public were supposed to decide, and then vote? Most people didnt have a clue why they were even voting, what they were really voting for, and didnt ask for it in the first place. So the question in that circumstance might have made a difference to how people voted, different wording might have had an effect.

But with the Scottish referendum, it's 2 1/2 years away, and people in Scotland have been talking about the issues for decades, and focussed on it much more since devolution. The wording of the question, and some psephologists have admitted, won't make any difference this time because people will absolutely know what they are voting for and won't be influenced one way or another on the day.

Also, to claim that by me using "the Scottish people" I am somehow overstating any understanding of what the people want is nonsense. The British people decided to elect the coalition government. The British people chose to reject AV. The Scottish people chose to elect a SNP government. Common usage of the word. To infer I am being misleading because not every person in the country all unanimously agreed on a particular election or referendum is ... stupid.

If the Scottish people choose independence, in the same way all referenda and elections do with a majority of those who bothered to vote, the independence will happen. Legal challenges, votes in HOS, none of it will matter. If the Scottish people choose no, or some form of additional devolution (if offered) thats what will happen.

[mistermack]

On the word independent, do you consider UK independent from France? Yes. Yes, you do.

No, no I don't. It's very kind of you to answer for me, but I can spare a few letters of my own.

The UK and France are very interdependent, thank you very much. They are politically separate, but only partly. We now are joined in a Union which is much more than just economic.
we are voting on laws which both will have to obey. The EU gets closer and closer every day.

So no, not independent from France. I would say we are a bit more independent of France, than New York is of New Jersey. That's about it.

Like I said, independent is a flattering term, that many people would like to be considered as, even though they are very much not. That's why the Nats want it in the question.

Separation, or "do you want Scotland to separate politically from the rest of the UK?" is the truth. That's why you don't like it.

To infer I am being misleading because not every person in the country all unanimously agreed on a particular election or referendum is ... stupid.

You clearly are being misleading. If it's not true, it's misleading. And it's not true.
So you find a preference for the truth stupid.
That says a lot.

[ronmcd]

No, no I don't. It's very kind of you to answer for me, but I can spare a few letters of my own.

The UK and France are very interdependent, thank you very much. They are politically separate, but only partly. We now are joined in a Union which is much more than just economic.
we are voting on laws which both will have to obey. The EU gets closer and closer every day.

So no, not independent from France. I would say we are a bit more independent of France, than New York is of New Jersey. That's about it.

Like I said, independent is a flattering term, that many people would like to be considered as, even though they are very much not. That's why the Nats want it in the question.

Separation, or "do you want Scotland to separate politically from the rest of the UK?" is the truth. That's why you don't like it.

Lol. Okay, well my definition of independent is politically independent in the same way as UK, France, Germany, Ireland, etc are independent. If you want to redefine the term to mean something else, rock on. But call it what you will ... what Scotland will be voting for or against is THAT level of independence/separation, ie political control in Scotland that currently resides in London/Paris/Dublin but not in Edinburgh.

None of those countries would agree with your characterisation that they are not independent.

You clearly are being misleading. If it's not true, it's misleading. And it's not true.
So you find a preference for the truth stupid.
That says a lot.

No, it is not misleading at all to suggest that when the result of an election or referendum is reached, we say "the decision of the people". What else is it? Again, amazing how a UK general election is commonly seen as the decision of the British (and NI) people, but you choose to quibble over my use of the "Scottish people". When was the last election where you didn't hold this bizarre view? The last one which you agreed with perhaps? As opposed to this one whose very existence seems to offend your democratic sensibilities lol.

[mistermack]

There is actually a difference between saying, the decision of the people, and saying that the Scottish people voted for something.
Both are misleading, but the second is pretty much a lie.
Just because people use it all the time, that doesn't change the fact. People use the second phrase when the result was what they wanted.

If 35% voted for something, it's a lie to say "the scottish people" voted for it.
"a majority" is honest. "the scottish people" is not.

I didn't vote for Cameron or the Liberals. I don't like it being implied that I did.

[ronmcd]

There is actually a difference between saying, the decision of the people, and saying that the Scottish people voted for something.
Both are misleading, but the second is pretty much a lie.
Just because people use it all the time, that doesn't change the fact. People use the second phrase when the result was what they wanted.

If 35% voted for something, it's a lie to say "the scottish people" voted for it.
"a majority" is honest. "the scottish people" is not.

I didn't vote for Cameron or the Liberals. I don't like it being implied that I did.

I wasnt implying you did, if my post suggested that it wasn't intended. I said "The last one which you agreed with perhaps?". I wasnt suggesting that was the 2010 election, but the last result you agreed with.