SHOCK POLL. 67% want independence...... from Scotland

[Tony the Toad]

Actually, anyone who wishes to be ruled, in any way, by a parliament outwith their own country, is subservient and, frankly, living in child-like world of reliance. The key point is autonomy, which will enable the country to grow up, and to co-exist with its neighbours, and the rest of the world, in a more adult manner. Those who would vote against independence are cowards who are afraid to stand on their own feet.

[MonaLott]

The unfairness and inequality relate to the facts that, contrary to English mythology, Scotland has been financially subsidising England for years and thus has more poverty, poorer health, worse infrastructure etc; it also has a Westminster government shares has no common ground whatsoever with Scotland's political makeup. Autonomy is indeed the answer.

[Pentlandpirate]

Tony, the country you live in is the United Kingdom. Your nationality is British. Check your passport!

You are not ruled from outwith your country. And there's nothing subservient or childlike about our method of government. That's the sort of attitude the Yes campaigners want you to have, and it doesn't make you feel good about yourselves. I would suggest you don't tend 'No' campaigners with the same chip on their shoulder. Far from being cowards it is the No campaigners that have the confidence in our country to want to keep it together.

[Herby Dice]

No, it does make sense. It is making the point that in both the 'Westminster' and Scottish parliamentary elections the percentage of people in Scotland who voted for 'Unionists' was 80.1% and 54.6% respectively. The pecentage of people in Scotland who voted for the 'independence' party, the SNP , in bothe elections were the minority. Scotland has daydreamed its way into the referendum process against the wishes of the majority of the voters.

An independent Scotland proposes to introduce proportional representation for a fairer Scotland as they put it. Yet the path they have taken thus far would be deemed unfair by their own standards.

Even asssuming that all votes not for the SNP were for "Unionist" candidates, which is in itself not entirely true, this argument is odd, to say the least. The SNP made it quite clear that should they hold a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament, they would hold a referendum on independence. They were elected to a majority. They are holding a referendum. It's sort of how democracy works kind of thing.

I know that politicians keeping their promises is an unusual concept, but they are merely doing what they were elected to do. If no government has a mandate to act unless they have an absolute majority of votes cast, no government in recent British history would ever have been able to do anything. The most popular government in post-war British history was the tory govt of Anthony Eden in 1955. Even he could not get 50% of the vote. Every action of every British government at least since the war has been against the wishes of the majority of the British people, by your argument.

[Tony the Toad]

Tony, the country you live in is the United Kingdom. Your nationality is British. Check your passport!

You are not ruled from outwith your country. And there's nothing subservient or childlike about our method of government. That's the sort of attitude the Yes campaigners want you to have, and it doesn't make you feel good about yourselves. I would suggest you don't tend 'No' campaigners with the same chip on their shoulder. Far from being cowards it is the No campaigners that have the confidence in our country to want to keep it together.

You know, Pirate, it's a sure sign that people have run out of valid arguments when they start using the vacuous 'chip on the shoulders' cop-out.

[NickB]

Even asssuming that all votes not for the SNP were for "Unionist" candidates, which is in itself not entirely true, this argument is odd, to say the least. The SNP made it quite clear that should they hold a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament, they would hold a referendum on independence. They were elected to a majority. They are holding a referendum. It's sort of how democracy works kind of thing.

I know that politicians keeping their promises is an unusual concept, but they are merely doing what they were elected to do. If no government has a mandate to act unless they have an absolute majority of votes cast, no government in recent British history would ever have been able to do anything. The most popular government in post-war British history was the tory govt of Anthony Eden in 1955. Even he could not get 50% of the vote. Every action of every British government at least since the war has been against the wishes of the majority of the British people, by your argument.

There is of course a precedent for the Pirate's way of applying democracy to Scotland. Today is the 34th anniversary of the gerrymandered 1979 referendum on devolution - remember, the one where Scots voted for devolution but were told they couldn't have it because Westminster had made a new rule that 40% of the electorate had to vote yes, as opposed to 40% of those actually voting.

If you look at the graphic below you will see that neither Cameron's Tories nor the current coalition government as a whole would have any legitimacy under such a '40%' rule, or whatever strange concept of a democratic voting system the Irate Pirate seems to have.



I do think though that this aspect of the discussion points up the need for involvement and ultimately a big turnout for the referendum with - hopefully - a decisive result. Although the SNP victory in 2011 was historic it was achieved with a disappointingly low turnout. The referendum deserves better. We have 18 months to engage people and get them to participate in the discussion and the vote.

This is probably the biggest political decision most people will take in their lifetime.

[Husker Doo]

I agree people need to engage with the debate and despite themselves get interested in politics

[Pentlandpirate]

Democracy is a strange thing to define. Is it right that a party which gets 45% of the vote 'wins' if only 40% of the eligible electorate (which is only 60% of the population) cast a vote? In that case the votes for the winning party only represent a tiny proportion of the electorate.

Or is it better that it becomes law that you must cast a vote (as is in the case in some very democratic countries) so that at least it can be said that everyone did have a say rather than one where everyone could have a say? The idea that anyone is forced to vote is undemocratic in itself but there is no denying that you get a more representative result , and especially on such crucial decisions as deciding the future of your country, I think it was right that in 1979 they demanded that 40% of the electorate must vote Yes for a referendum, so that the result was more representative of all the people's views, based on a decent voting turnout.

The following gives an interesting view on things as they stand, written by a Scot, and reflects many of my views: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tland.html

[NickB]

What a thoroughly pointless, content-free piece of vitriol that Telegraph article is. Still, hardly surprising . . . It is written by a man who left Scotland many years ago, preferring to live in an expensive and leafy part of London, where he writes for the Conservative Home blog. In addition to believing that he should - despite having turned his back both geographically and politically on his country - have some say in its future, he also wants the Human Rights act repealed.

Most Scots, independence-minded or not, will be thoroughly unimpressed by the humourless and blustering Mr. Archer. People living here - those of us who collectively will make this momentous decision for Scotland next year - are interested in the views of our fellow citizens. People like Archer are an irrelevance.

[Tony the Toad]

Regarding PP’s Telegraph link:

As UKIP is pronounced ‘you kip’, then UKOK is particularly poorly thought out.

[NickB]

.
And regarding the media generally . . .

Some of you may hate this because of the way it is delivered (the combination of the Anonymous 'V' Guy Fawkes mask and the Hey Jimmy wig are not to everyone's taste) but what 'McV' has to say about media bias in the independence debate needs to be heard if you want to be able to make a fair, informed decision.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aZprBV3QOgU[/youtube]

[Pentlandpirate]

despite having turned his back both geographically and politically on his country

Are you accusing all people of Scots blood who don't live in Scotland as being some sort of traitors? And any Scot who doesn't agree with the Yes Campaigners has turned their back on their country?

You don't consider, Nick, that you with no Scots blood are a traitor to your country of birth? Or that all Yes campaigners are traitors to their country which is the United Kingdom?

Would it make sense to let the Yes campaigners set up an Independent Scotland in say, the Western Isles and neighbouring west coast, whilst those who wish to can have another part of Scotland still part of the UK. That way the Independent Scotland can have home rule, closer to home as they desire, say in Fort William. Isn't that a fairer Scotland?

[NickB]

despite having turned his back both geographically and politically on his country

Are you accusing all people of Scots blood who don't live in Scotland as being some sort of traitors?

No Pirate. I am saying that they have chosen not to live in Scotland, so shouldn't expect people to place much weight on their opinions regarding the current constitutional debate.

It is you that has decided to use that utterly inappropriate word, just as it was you who decided to mention Hitler . . .

[Pentlandpirate]

Nick, I twist things round no more than you do from the opposing arguments! And by twisting my words you have tried to suggest I am some sort of supporter of Hitler (on a number of occasions) and everything he did just because I mention his name in a perfectly pertinent way.

Any way, what you meant to say by saying

despite having turned his back both geographically and politically on his country

he's not a traitor, but something along those lines? I think we'll let it lie But I think we all know what you tried to infer. What is wrong with Scots people who live elsewhere who don't share your political views? Aren't there something like 20 million outside Scotland? Isn't it a matter of pride for Scotland that so many Scots have emigrated and made a positive contribution wherever they have settled around the globe?

Any Scot who does not live in Scotland has not necessarily turned their back on their country. An obvious example might be Sean Connery who chooses somewhere much warmer to live. In fact the Yes campaigners love to have his active support, yet by your own words, he is exactly the sort of person who's opinions you shouldn't place much weight on. But he wants to get stuck in and you may find some Scots who choose to live elsewhere, far from having turned their back on Scotland, often have a greater passion for their homeland than those inside it. I don't have any bitterness towards Yes campaigners, I just don't want my country, which includes Scotland, a 'country' I have strong blood connections with and am passionate about, to split from the UK.

From where I am seeing things, so much of the bitterness and negativity comes from the Yes side of the argument who really do feel put down. Portraying the "Better Together" slogan as "Bitter Together" just shows the bitterness from that side. It is the Yes campaign that does everything it can to make Scots feel like second class citizens. Why is it that only a minority of the electorate, it would appear at the moment, feel this way? I believe so much of it is about attitude. It is the very people who talk Scotland down who are holding it back. The McV video is a glowing example of how to be negative. Why are people still banging on about Margaret Thatcher? Too many Scots are stuck in the past and need to stop playing the blame game. If all Scots concentrated on having a "Yes" attitude to achieving things in life they could make things so much better for themselves.

[NickB]

What is wrong with Scots people who live elsewhere who don't share your political views?

Nothing - they are free to believe whatever they want and to live wherever they want. However, if they live elsewhere and are not on the Scottish electoral register then they have no legal right to take part in the democratic process in Scotland. They are however completely free to publish vitriolic ill-informed articles in the UK right wing media.

Isn't it a matter of pride for Scotland that so many Scots have emigrated and made a positive contribution wherever they have settled around the globe?

Isn't it a matter of shame that so many were forced to leave - a trend that continued through most of the 20th century under a succession of Westminster governments for whom Scotland was usually an afterthought.

Any Scot who does not live in Scotland has not necessarily turned their back on their country. An obvious example might be Sean Connery who chooses somewhere much warmer to live.

Sean Connery is a tax exile - I am not sure the air temperature has much to do with it. He has said he would come back to live in an independent Scotland.

I just don't want my country, which includes Scotland, a 'country' I have strong blood connections with and am passionate about, to split from the UK.

Yes, I think that after seven pages we have got that. You are still not going to get a vote though.

[Pentlandpirate]

Isn't it a matter of shame that so many were forced to leave - a trend that continued through most of the 20th century under a succession of Westminster governments for whom Scotland was usually an afterthought.

Always negative, always down-trodden, always second class citizens? It's only the Yes campaigners who say that. And they've made you believe it. Absolutely no one else believes the whingers and the moaners. They've always been negative. That's shameful!

[NickB]

Always negative, always down-trodden, always second class citizens? It's only the Yes campaigners who say that. And they've made you believe it. Absolutely no one else believes the whingers and the moaners. There's nothing good that they've done for you, ever.

Yeah, right - the Clearances were a myth of course, as was Thatcher's imposition of the poll tax on the Scots. For a man who claims to have such a strong interest in Scotland you seem to know very little about it.

[Pentlandpirate]

BLAME it on the Clearances! You don't live in Caithness for a chunk of your life and not know about the Clearances. But was that all down to the English? I think you'll find not! And for those Scots who now live in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, USA, South Africa, etc, etc, do you think they would regret their forefathers got on the boat?

......and what are you STILL going on about Margaret Thatcher for? The Poll Tax (Community charge). What was unfair about that? Each person paid the same amount. Why is it deemed fair that the more you earn the higher the percentage of tax you pay....where is the equality in that? If you earn £10K a year and the tax is 10% you pay £1000 in tax. So on the same basis if you earn £200K if it was equal you should pay £20K in tax. But the person on £200K has to pay more like 50% on their £200K so they pay £100K in tax. That's 100 times what the other person pays in this example. Is that fair? Why should one person pay more tax than another if you are talking about fairness? Some people have alot to thank the better off for. An unequal society is helping to pay for those who can't pay their way.

[NickB]

.


Thatcher will never be forgiven by most Scots for imposing the poll tax on Scotland as an experiment a year before it was imposed in England. Your inability to understand the depth of feeling that subject raises across the country demonstrates again how very out of touch with Scotland you are. More than 1.5m people refused to pay.

This debate is about government and whether Scotland's interests are served by a parliamentary union which denies Scotland basic democratic control of many aspects of the administration of our country. It's not about England and the English at all.

There are legitimate, and serious, questions of democratic representation in Scotland under the Union. Although this concept may be difficult for Daily Telegraph readers to grasp, the desire for Scottish self-determination is not about England and the English. Shocking but true. England is not the centre of the Scottish universe, that would be Scotland. Perhaps that's what they're really objecting to.

[jimcee]

This debate will probably continue until the referendum takes place, at the present rate, but very little new is being said.
Here is a point for consideration.
Mrs Thatcher's Poll Tax was unpopular because a large proportion of the population were being asked to contribute to the services they receive ( a burden that was being shouldered and still is, by a property tax which has no bearing on occupancy or income)
Naturally anyone who has not made any contribution to all that the state provides, is going to be vociferous in opposition to being made to pay their share.
However, this democratic and fair reform foundered on outcry from those opposed to contributing.
Then along came the SNP with a majority government in Holyrood who tried to introduce Local Income Tax, which was virtually the same as the Poll Tax. Again this democratic reform got nowhere, despite the SNP majority. So if SNP supporters deride Mrs Thatcher this is purely the pot calling the ketle black.