1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,320

    Largely though why a lot of Scots are for a referendum - isn't because they will (necessarily) actually vote to leave the Union - its about defining a level of autonomy and retaining an identity.
     
  2. ThePirateHulk

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 3, 2009

    Posts: 897

    Location: Sydney

    Why not? We still pay our taxes to the UK Treasury.
     
  3. ThePirateHulk

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 3, 2009

    Posts: 897

    Location: Sydney

    A level of autonomy that is being denied to us. If a FFA/Devo-max option was available to us in the referendum it would have won by a landslide (which is why it wasn't allowed on the ballot).

    Now we have the Tories and Labour dressing up useless tax raising powers and the ability to legislate on the colour of the sky as "devo-max" and saying to the Scottish people "like it or lump it". Well, we sure as hell do not like it.
     
  4. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales

    And you can still have access to the service however it should be based south of the border.

    Frequent referendums would make investing in Scotland like building on a floodplain
     
  5. ThePirateHulk

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 3, 2009

    Posts: 897

    Location: Sydney

    So, Scotland should continue to invest in capital infrastructure in England end expect nothing in return?

    Sums up the British attitude really.

    Edit: I noticed you explicitly said "services". What exactly do you mean by this? That the UK should stop funding all Westminster controlled services such as Welfare, defence, pensions etc until we promise to be good little forelock tuggers and cap doffers that the great and good of England expect us to be?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  6. dessimpson

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 27, 2008

    Posts: 1,731

    Location: Gloucester

    The vote was "No". End of story.
     
  7. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 17,260

    Location: Kiel, Germany

    55% of Scots voted no, in case you've forgotten. Any attempt to hold a rapid new referendum is a rejection of the will of the Scottish people.

    Wrong. Scotland can hold another referendum when Westminster agrees it can. No arm of the Scottish national government has the legal right to hold a referendum.
     
  8. Harlequin

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 17, 2004

    Posts: 2,951

    Location: Eastbourne , East Sussex.

    not bad return so far - 5 million people telling 54 million people what to do.....

    when is our vote to get rid of Scotland?
     
  9. englishpremier

    Soldato

    Joined: Feb 15, 2003

    Posts: 6,891

    Location: Europe

    Except since it's 'once in a generation' there should be another vote 20-25 years (a generation) so there is another story to come at some point.
     
  10. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,559

    Location: Wales


    No the offices etc that were built in Scotland that provide the services for all the uk but were built there to provide jobs.

    It would make more sense to move them now if referendums are going to keep coming up.


    sorry but if you keep threatening to leave you have to accept that you're a risky place to invest in./

    it is just like building on a flood plain.
     
  11. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,488

    But there must be a new generation of Scots ready to support independence already. They were born yesterday.
     
  12. dessimpson

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 27, 2008

    Posts: 1,731

    Location: Gloucester

    That I can accept, but 12 months down the line is taking the biscuit. If there is another, I might have to move back to Scotland, just to vote no :D

    On a side note. I wonder how they'd claim to be able to fund it now that the North Sea oil is worth sod all?
     
  13. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    Absolutely fair enough - 20 - 25 years allows enough time for all the immediate short term "ups and downs" of normal life, economy and politics to be put into a larger context over a period of time to give a more realistic view. It's simply ridiculous to think you can demand a new referendum and try to hold Wales, England and Northern Ireland, not to mention the 55% of Scots who voted "no" last time to ransom every time the Nats don't like an answer or see an opportunity to further their own xenophobic political aims.

    The electorate of Scotland, flat out, unequivocally rejected the Nats calls for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, despite a massive campaign for a YES vote lead by some of the countries most charismatic professional politicians desperately trying every trick in the book.

    The answer was no, Sottish Nationalists should do their countrymen the courtesy of accepting the Scottish people spoke on the subject "for a generation" and stop whining. Their only answer now is to moan about everything and try to poison relations between Scots and the Northern Irish, English and Welsh in the hope driving a wedge between the countries that really isn't there outside the heads of a few xenophobic nutters.

    Can you imagine if the vote had been "yes" and the United Kingdom government had halted Scottish independence and scheduled a new referendum post EU membership results.

    Wee wreck really has very little credibility these days and is going to just have to come to terms with the fact he's not going to be president of Scotland.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  14. Raumarik

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 14, 2003

    Posts: 13,692


    I don't see how you can say that 11 out of 20 people equates to "unequivocally rejected". I'd say it was pretty damn close, yes that equates to a difference of around 10% (11 to 9) which frankly isn't a hell of a lot for such an important decision.

    It's the same false logic of stating that Scotland is currently overwhelmingly supportive of the SNP, who got around 50% of the vote at the last general election. Both are over stating the case.
     
  15. Macro

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 9, 2006

    Posts: 5,689

    55% against vs 45% for is a pretty unequivocal result in particular when you take into account the magnitude of the nationalist campaign. Add in the further 15% who chose not to vote (who you could arguably say were happy with status quo enough not to feel the need to vote either way) and it's a pretty clear expression from the Scottish people which should be respected.

    The Nats basis for the vote was it was a once in a generation or lifetime decision, until it seems the Scottish people got the answer wrong so we're going to have to ask you again until you get it right.

    I do take the point that the SNP has somehow succeeded in trying to portray an image that the vast majority of Scots support the SNP and have the desire to leave the Union despite the referendum saying otherwise.
     
  16. Harlequin

    Mobster

    Joined: Jun 17, 2004

    Posts: 2,951

    Location: Eastbourne , East Sussex.

    15% was also the difference between the YES camp og Glasgow turnout and the NO camp of Dundee.... had those extra 15% of Glaswegian voters shown up they could have swung it.


    but they didn't and 10% is a big margin
     
  17. xs2man

    Suspended

    Joined: Jul 21, 2008

    Posts: 4,669

    10% is a big margin. That's around 500,000 people in Scotland. Not nothing by a long way. And certainly enough to draw a line under it for a generation.

    You can bet your bottom dollar if 250,001 of that 500,000 people had voted Yes instead, Salmond et al would have been swinging from the chandeliers celebrating their 1 vote victory, and put into motion their negotiation team for the break up of assets. So to say it is almost nothing the other way would be misleading.
     
  18. clockwork.satan

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 22, 2015

    Posts: 294

    Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

    I heard someone say '55% is not a majority' the other day while strolling home through Edinburgh. Nearly choked on my cookies.