SNP to break up Britian?

[Biohazard]

they may agree with the electoral commission, but it doesn't mean when the time comes for the vote they will still agree, especially if its looking like going one way more than the other before the vote.

hell they still haven't worked out how to ask the question, no one has said what it will be and i bet when they do finally get around to it one side or the other will complain.

Err, the question has been agreed.

The Edinburgh Agreement also has a sunset clause, into which makes your concerns rather obsolete.

honestly can you see it being a straight in/out vote and neither side will try and fiddle with the question ? as i cant.

See above? If you still think there is going to be a mass conspiracy here I think you're going to be mistaken.

i remember watching a news piece about this last year before they signed it in to law and both sides where spouting much bullpoop over how they ask the question, as apparently writing down "do you want a independent scotland yes/no" is too damned complicated.

And that was last year..

 

[Biohazard]

And you wonder why you were called arrogant and egotistical? It is about everyone in the UK, not just Scotland.

No it isn't. This is Scottish self determination.

It may also help to quote the entire statement, as opposed to reading the first sentence to further your obsession with my apparent arrogance as opposed to engaging properly in any notion of debate.

 

[Castiel]

What was the turnout in Scotland during the last general election?

If anything Scotland (and the other devolved nations) have better representation at a local (country if you like) level than the English, who have no devolved powers or representation outside of Westminster. For the most part, the coalition is no more representative of England than it is Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland....no-one voted for a coalition.

 

[Angilion]

Of course any chance to demean someone's existence is oh so welcome.

Maybe it is to you, but how is that relevant to this question?

No, we keep the queen, some people need to learn some history, which is funny considering the point of this vote is history.

She's not a direct descendent of James V/I, is she?

Besides, if we're going by past origins then France gets the queen, since both England and Scotland were run by Normans.

 

[Biohazard]

Its the sheer hatred towards the English that drives them.

Yes, because choosing your own destiny just has to be predicated on Anglo-phobia doesn't it?

Americans? Anti English.
Indians? Anti English.
Africans? Anti English.
Irish? Anti English.
Australians? Anti English.
Canadians? Anti English.
Scottish?

so on, and so forth.

Such an awful amount of hatred in the world for England don't you think?

 

[Biohazard]

It's true for most people in Scotland. You get a grip.

Having worked in Scotland quite a bit, I get the vibe that this is the case. Maybe I have worked in the wrong areas of Scotland.

You worked in Scotland a bit, so feel justified in such sweeping statements?

Ok.

 

[Biohazard]

yeah, because asking "do you want a independent scotland. yes/no" is really hard.

im sorry but if scotland wants to be independent of england then thats what they should be voting for, not for varying degree's of independence, its in or out.

Scotland is voting to leave or stay with the United Kingdom. Not England. There are more countries within this nation.

 

[Castiel]

She's not a direct descendent of James V/I, is she?

Besides, if we're going by past origins then France gets the queen, since both England and Scotland were run by Normans.

She is a descendant of Margaret Tudor, who married James IV of Scotland and whose Son was James V of Scotland....the rest of the lineage I am sure you can research at your leisure.

 

[Biohazard]

That sort of opinion is the lack of respect Scotland has to deal with politically and socially, why do you promote it?

Because him alongside the other anti-Scottish trolls from yesteryear are borderline xenophobic? Or just bitter?

Take your pick.

 

[Biohazard]

Biohazard, presumably, since his voice is the will of Scotland.

If only it was that easy!

 

[Biohazard]

What was the turnout in Scotland during the last general election?

If anything Scotland (and the other devolved nations) have better representation at a local (country if you like) level than the English, who have no devolved powers or representation outside of Westminster. For the most part, the coalition is no more representative of England than it is Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland....no-one voted for a coalition.

It isn't representative of Scotland at all, if our votes are excluded (or swung) from history those Governments would have happened all the same.

There are arguments that this is the case elsewhere, but unfortunately Scottish politics can't quite encompass all that. The UK has had ample opportunity to have a more representative system, for everyone, but has failed. The Westminster Establishment has shown itself unresponsive.

No one did vote for a coalition, but Scots certainly didn't vote for Tories or Liberal-Demotories for that matter! It's not just the electoral system, but the corrupt UK political system that fractures further still along geographic and demographics.

 

[Mr Joshua]

A part of me feels that it's a shame to break up the union (they don't like us anymore! ) however, I can't blame the Scottish people for wanting independence (those who want it) from Westminster and London-centric politicians.

I just hope should the "yes" lobby get their will they end up with the politicians they deserve and not another bunch of self serving wastes of skin.

 

[Castiel]

It isn't representative of Scotland at all, if our votes are excluded (or swung) from history those Governments would have happened all the same.

There are arguments that this is the case elsewhere, but unfortunately Scottish politics can't quite encompass all that. The UK has had ample opportunity to have a more representative system, for everyone, but has failed. The Westminster Establishment has shown itself unresponsive.

No one did vote for a coalition, but Scots certainly didn't vote for Tories or Liberal-Demotories for that matter! It's not just the electoral system, but the corrupt UK political system that fractures further still along geographic and demographics.

Hmmm, I suspect that there are plenty of Scottish people throughout the United Kingdom that did vote for all the parties in Westminster, including those that formed the coalition.

Devolution itself would illustrate that the UK Govt (not this one specifically) is responsive to the wants of its constituent countries demands, we shall see if a majority of Scots (at least those living in Scotland, if not elsewhere in the UK) think as you do, that is the point of the referendum, is it not?

What was the turnout in Scotland during the last GE?

 

[Biohazard]

Hmmm, I suspect that there are plenty of Scottish people throughout the United Kingdom that did vote for all the parties in Westminster, including those that formed the coalition.

There are, but what I'm saying is the votes don't count for anything really. Scotland voted as it did in the previous election, except this time a Labour government disapeared to be replaced with a Tory one. Votes for Liberal Democrats were completed misplaced with their campaign to keep out the very people they greased into power. People did vote Liberal Democrat, but they've certainly betrayed a massive chunk of them. Rinse repeat, and even if the party does do what it says on the tin then it doesn't matter anyway. Other parts of the UK will essentially make the choice of Government, Scotland's inclusion is representation but it's not representative. When it has been, it's only been through shear co-incidence.

Devolution itself would illustrate that the UK Govt (not this one specifically) is responsive to the wants of its constituent countries demands, we shall see if a majority of Scots (at least those living in Scotland, if not elsewhere in the UK) think as you do, that is the point of the referendum, is it not?

Not greatly, actually. If anything it's shown how far the UK Establishment would go to stymie Scottish self determination from, not exclusively, the 70's up to the claimed Council of Europe involvement forcing Labour to eventually accede. They deny it vehemently, but that Government locked the files away for 30 years so they seem to have some issues with transparency on the issue. That'll be a FOI request for the future.

The UK government didn't deliver the referendum, it was eventually forced to agree after the Scottish electorate took that option of obstruction from them.

What was the turnout in Scotland during the last GE?

Can't you google? I suspect I know where this is going, Westminster elections do draw a higher turn out - that doesn't make the end result more representative. It clearly doesn't!

 

[Castiel]

There are, but what I'm saying is the votes don't count for anything really. Scotland voted as it did in the previous election, except this time a Labour government disapeared to be replaced with a Tory one. Votes for Liberal Democrats were completed misplaced with their campaign to keep out the very people they greased into power. People did vote Liberal Democrat, but they've certainly betrayed a massive chunk of them. Rinse repeat, and even if the party does do what it says on the tin then it doesn't matter anyway. Other parts of the UK will essentially make the choice of Government, Scotland's inclusion is representation but it's not representative. When it has been, it's only been through shear co-incidence.

I think the point is that neither you nor your opinion are representative of everyone in Scotland...people do vote for the other parties and are therefore represented by them. Whether those votes count for anything should really be determined by those that made the choice, rather than simply on whether their vote returned a candidate or not. Given that there is a sitting Conservative MP in Scotland, I would say at least some are of a different opinion. The Scots do vote differently in Scottish or General elections anyway do they not? I assume because they have differing priorities for each.

Not greatly, actually. If anything it's shown how far the UK Establishment would go to stymie Scottish self determination from, not exclusively, the 70's up to the claimed Council of Europe involvement forcing Labour to eventually accede. They deny it vehemently, but that Government locked the files away for 30 years so they seem to have some issues with transparency on the issue. That'll be a FOI request for the future.

I would say that devolution gives more representation and more opportunity for self determination rather than styming it..but then that would depend on whether you accept only full independence as the only form of acceptable representation I suppose.

The UK government didn't deliver the referendum, it was eventually forced to agree after the Scottish electorate took that option of obstruction from them.

What has that got to do with anything? Whether a referendum was a particularly important manifesto pledge to the majority of Scots who returned an SNP majority remains to be seen however.

Can't you google? I suspect I know where this is going, Westminster elections do draw a higher turn out - that doesn't make the end result more representative. It clearly doesn't!

I can, but not easily, and you have the wrong end of the stick....what I am trying to ascertain is what proportion of Scots actually vote in GE and just how directly representational they are to the Scottish People as a whole, you imply that GE results are representative of the will of the whole, I was trying to determine just what proportion of that whole are voting at all (and of those, who are they voting for and which policies matter to them). But as you have said GE results are not more representative then I assume you meant something else.

 

[Biohazard]

I think the point is that neither you nor your opinion are representative of everyone in Scotland...people do vote for the other parties and are therefore represented by them. Whether those votes count for anything should really be determined by those that made the choice, rather than simply on whether their vote returned a candidate or not.

I don't think that's the point, the point is that it doesn't matter what people in Scotland vote for they do not decide their Government. If it is representative of their overall choice, it is by fluke.

There are arguments over what constitutes reasoning for a vote, such as local issues or single agendas, but irrespectively people vote for parties at the end of the day and that is by in large the main indicator of political choice or will.

I would say that devolution gives more representation and more opportunity for self determination rather than styming it..but then that would depend on whether you accept only full independence as the only form of acceptable representation I suppose.

That would clearly be a misrepresentation of my reply, and to your initial question.

What was stymied by Westminster was devolution itself, you were of the opinion that it was rather forthcoming and thus proved the UK Establishment was 'responsive'. I rebuked that, now you are trying to imply some else altogether when you really should be well beyond playing these petty games.

What has that got to do with anything? Whether a referendum was a particularly important manifesto pledge to the majority of Scots who returned an SNP majority remains to be seen however.

It's in response to your opinion right here;

"Devolution itself would illustrate that the UK Govt is responsive to the wants of its constituent countries demands, we shall see if a majority of Scots think as you do, that is the point of the referendum, is it not? [Castiel]"

"The UK government didn't deliver the referendum, it was eventually forced to agree after the Scottish electorate took that option of obstruction from them.[Biohazard]"

I think it's quite obvious, I don't agree with your direct correlation between a forthcoming Westminster and the almost miracle referendum against all odds - including those set against it by Westminster itself.

I can, but not easily, and you have the wrong end of the stick....what I am trying to ascertain is what proportion of Scots actually vote in GE and just how directly representational they are to the Scottish People as a whole, you imply that GE results are representative of the will of the whole, I was trying to determine just what proportion of that whole are voting at all. But as you have said GE results are not more representative then I assume you meant something else.

As I said, it may be representation but if it is representative it's only by chance and not design.

 

[Castiel]

I don't think that's the point, the point is that it doesn't matter what people in Scotland vote for they do not decide their Government. If it is representative of their overall choice, it is by fluke.

There are arguments over what constitutes reasoning for a vote, such as local issues or single agendas, but irrespectively people vote for parties at the end of the day and that is by in large the main indicator of political choice or will.

The Scottish do decide their Government, in the same way as everyone else, whether it is representative is a matter for the individual to decide, it can be argued that the coalition isn't particularly representative of anyone as no-one voted for it...they also have the added benefit of having more local representation in quite a few areas, particularly those relating to their everyday lives.

Which is the largest Scottish Party in Westminster?

What actual percentage of Scots voted for the SNP in 2011 and if we suppose their primary concern was independence, what does that imply about the majority Will of the Scottish People?

That would clearly be a misrepresentation of my reply, and to your initial question.

No it isn't.

What was stymied by Westminster was devolution itself, you were of the opinion that it was rather forthcoming and thus proved the UK Establishment was 'responsive'. I rebuked that, now you are trying to imply some else altogether when you really should be well beyond playing these petty games.

I said it is illustrative that the UK Govt responds to the demands of its constituent countries...you said it stymied self determination...I disagree, I think devolution give opportunity rather than stymying it. It isn't a misrepresentation or playing games, and I am not interested in childish nonsense, if you meant something else then explain it differently, don't go accusing me of something I haven't done and making this personal. I'll simply stop replying to you.

It's in response to your opinion right here;

"Devolution itself would illustrate that the UK Govt is responsive to the wants of its constituent countries demands, we shall see if a majority of Scots think as you do, that is the point of the referendum, is it not? [Castiel]"

"The UK government didn't deliver the referendum, it was eventually forced to agree after the Scottish electorate took that option of obstruction from them.[Biohazard]"

I think it's quite obvious, I don't agree with your direct correlation between a forthcoming Westminster and the almost miracle referendum against all odds - including those set against it by Westminster itself.

I didn't make that correlation....I simply meant that the referendum will decide whether the majority of Scots agree with you on the effectiveness of devolution and whether they feel represented by such. You misunderstood, hence the in my reply.

As I said, it may be representation but if it is representative it's only by chance and not design.

How do you know then if any result is representative? It may only be by chance..the SNP getting a mandate to call for a referendum may have simply been by chance as the electorate may have voted for the SNP for a variety of unrelated reasons....again, the result of the referendum will tell.

And that is the point I am trying to convey, that while you ascribe certain positions as being the Will of the Scottish People, what we actually have is a broad range of different positions and a referendum that will ultimately decide precisely what the Will of The Scottish People actually is, at least regarding Independence and how represented they feel under the UK umbrella.

 

[Biohazard]

The Scottish do decide their Government, in the same way as everyone else, whether it is representative is a matter for the individual to decide, it can be argued that the coalition isn't particularly representative of anyone as no-one voted for it...they also have the added benefit of having more local representation in quite a few areas, particularly those relating to their everyday lives.

They certainly decide Holyrood, Westminster is outwith their control and influence.

Which is the largest Scottish Party in Westminster?

Labour.

No it isn't.

I said it is illustrative that the UK Govt responds to the demands of its constituent countries...you said it stymied self determination...I disagree, I think devolution give opportunity rather than stymying it. It isn't a misrepresentation or playing games, and I am not interested in childish nonsense, if you meant something else then explain it differently, don't go accusing me of something I haven't done and making this personal. I'll simply stop replying to you.

Well clearly it is, if you then go on to discuss the original gambit?

Why can't you debate without this nonsense, accusing someone else of the very tactics you clearly employ?We can talk about the disagreements just fine without the contortions. It's like arguing with a highly intelligent child. "No I didn't. Yes you did. Sit over there you naughty boy.. I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU"

Anyway, you believe that Westminster has been responsive to Scots over the decades. I disagree, I don't think devolution is a great example of it on the face of it. No doubt much hard work did go into it by a cross section of the political spectrum, but it was not responsive it was reactive. Instigated by Labour who were frightened by the rise in nationalism in the wake of Tory subjugation of Scottish self determination.

I didn't make that correlation....I simply meant that the referendum will decide whether the majority of Scots agree with you on the effectiveness of devolution and whether they feel represented by such. You misunderstood, hence the in my reply.

Perhaps I misunderstood, perhaps I didn't. Maybe it's just you Castiel.

How do you know then if any result is representative? It may only be by chance..the SNP getting a mandate to call for a referendum may have simply been by chance as the electorate may have voted for the SNP for a variety of unrelated reasons....again, the result of the referendum will tell.

With Westminster it isn't, all of the past Government's would have happened even if all those Scots had eaten their ballot papers or voted the complete other direction from what they did. The reasonings that get to that point to cast a choice in a vote are varied, but that's irrelevant when the outcome is as well.

I think the reasons why people voted SNP so strongly are actually quite well cataloged, there isn't a lot of mystery about it. I'm not sure what the referendum result would say in relation to the successful and stubbornly popular Holyrood administration. Probably not much given the clear disconnect.

 

[Castiel]

They certainly decide Holyrood, Westminster is outwith their control and influence.

If you took a proportional selection of any part of the UK, you could make a similar argument..however that doesn't mean that they are not represented...the MPs returned by the Scottish People represent them do they not? And there are significant numbers of Scots living in the UK, but not in Scotland also....you cannot speak for them all or value their contribution so easily.

Labour.

And do those 41 Labour (and the others) represent Scots at Westminster?

Well clearly it is, if you then go on to discuss the original gambit? Why can't you debate without this nonsense, accusing someone else of the very tactics you clearly employ?We can talk about the disagreements just fine without the contortions. It's like arguing with a highly intelligent child. "No I didn't. Yes you did. Sit over there you naughty boy.. I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU"

...I already explained I did not imply what you accused me of..that should be enough...personal commentary isn't necessary or warranted. I stated I don't want to get into any childish nonsense and I will not, I will simply not reply to it, I will clarify my position if necessarily and that is all.

Anyway, you believe that Westminster has been responsive to Scots over the decades. I disagree, I don't think devolution is a great example of it on the face of it. No doubt much hard work did go into it by a cross section of the political spectrum, but it was not responsive it was reactive. Instigated by Labour who were frightened by the rise in nationalism in the wake of Tory subjugation of Scottish self determination.

Then we disagree...see, no need for the nonsense was there. Whether it was in response to demands or a reaction to demands is a little semantic though, it responded. The same could be said of the call for a referendum, when the SNP gained a clear majority, the implication as they are an independence centric party is that they had a mandate to call for a referendum on that question..the UK Govt responded, entered into negotiation and the Scottish People have a legal referendum agreed by the parties involved, prior to this the Scottish People were returning pro-Union parties in majority or coalition, so there was no implication of mandate or call for a referendum backed by such a mandate.

I fail to see the animosity implied here or why it is such a matter of contention, it is what it is.

Perhaps I misunderstood, perhaps I didn't. Maybe it's just you Castiel.

Perhaps, I'll leave you to your own opinion on it as its not worth the time. I clarified where necessary, accept it or not.

With Westminster it isn't, all of the past Government's would have happened even if all those Scots had eaten their ballot papers or voted the complete other direction from what they did. The reasonings that get to that point to cast a choice in a vote are varied, but that's irrelevant when the outcome is as well.

Would we have had a coalition if Scotland had not returned 41 Labour MPs?

I think the reasons why people voted SNP so strongly are actually quite well cataloged, there isn't a lot of mystery about it. I'm not sure what the referendum result would say in relation to the successful and stubbornly popular Holyrood administration. Probably not much given the clear disconnect.

On a another, slightly related note..what plans are there to release a draft constitution prior to the referendum?

 

[Biohazard]

If you took a proportional selection of any part of the UK, you could make a similar argument..however that doesn't mean that they are not represented...the MPs returned by the Scottish People represent them do they not?

They do, but Scotland still doesn't decide its own Government. Other people do, and it's been shown time and time again.

And do those 41 Labour (and the others) represent Scots at Westminster?

Biting my tongue while saying this, yes they do. That they have representation isn't necessarily make the Government representative of them. This, I suspect, is why most Scots wish the decisions that effect their everyday lives to be taken in Scotland. It's this, again, that the UK is showing itself unresponsive with by failing again to set the agenda for devolution to match this aspiration.

...I already explained I did not imply what you accused me of..that should be enough...personal commentary isn't necessary.

All prim and proper again. All's fair in love and war.

Then we disagree...see, no need for the nonsense was there. Whether it was in response to demands or a reaction to demands is a little semantic though.

We already know we disagree. It's not semantic at all, responsive would be engaged, reactive was due to the inherent political pressures involved at that time and the fear of rising nationalism. In fact, Whitehall nearly split over it.

Would we have had a coalition if Scotland had not returned 41 Labour MPs?

Yes.

On a another, slightly related note..what plans are there to release a draft constitution prior to the referendum?

There is much debate, and key principles parties suggest. A constitutional convention would take place in the advent of independence with all sections of Scottish society and politics involved following international precedents and examples.