Poll: The GD Referendum – Scottish Independence

Your vote

  • Yay, I want to be free

    Votes: 161 19.9%

  • Nay, never untie the knot

    Votes: 441 54.4%

  • Don’t care about Haggis and chips.

    Votes: 209 25.8%
  • Total voters
    811
cheesyboy said:
I've no idea. I'm not privy to what the argument was about.
Click to expand...

It the police were there just because voter numbers exceeded the capacity of the polling station then fair enough, but if they were there to keep order because of intimidation and threats over the voting intentions of people then it's a sad indictment of Scottish politics.

It seems there have been some arrests due to people threatening and abusing voters.
 
Castiel said:
It the police were there just because voter numbers exceeded the capacity of the polling station then fair enough, but if they were there to keep order because of intimidation and threats over the voting intentions of people then it's a sad indictment of Scottish politics.

It seems there have been some arrests due to people threatening and abusing voters.
Click to expand...

Well that's a lot of "ifs" to base such a sweeping statement on.

The nature of polling setups in the UK, and the knowledge of voters on the untraceability of their actual votes, doesn't allow for too much actual coercion. It was more likely to have been a discussion on the relative merits of Yes/No which got a little over-heated. It's a passionate subject, after all.

Probably, that sort of passion (albeit preferably a little more controlled) is a good thing to have. Apathy is a weakness of democracy, I would suggest.
 
Castiel said:
It the police were there just because voter numbers exceeded the capacity of the polling station then fair enough, but if they were there to keep order because of intimidation and threats over the voting intentions of people then it's a sad indictment of Scottish politics.

It seems there have been some arrests due to people threatening and abusing voters.
Click to expand...

He said, she said, taking a guess - how about some facts?
 
anything I don't mind said:
They can have Glasgow but we will take Edinburgh and the national parks. As well as the oil fields up north. The alternative is we can push the border back to Aberdeen.

They can have independence, however this means we draw new lines in the sand.
Click to expand...

What about the people down in Cumbria I was watching when on holiday a few weeks ago who were saying on a "what it means for us" programme that they wish they could go independent with the Scots lol :p
 
cheesyboy said:
Well that's a lot of "ifs" to base such a sweeping statement on.

The nature of polling setups in the UK, and the knowledge of voters on the untraceability of their actual votes, doesn't allow for too much actual coercion. It was more likely to have been a discussion on the relative merits of Yes/No which got a little over-heated. It's a passionate subject, after all.

Probably, that sort of passion (albeit preferably a little more controlled) is a good thing to have. Apathy is a weakness of democracy, I would suggest.
Click to expand...

There were not a lot of 'ifs' at all...just two different scenarios as to what is acceptable or not.

And if you are of the opinion that intimidation, threats and violence is preferable to apathy then we have nothing to discuss.
 
Castiel said:
There were not a lot of 'ifs' at all...just two different scenarios as to what is acceptable or not.

And if you are of the opinion that intimidation, threats and violence is preferable to apathy then we have nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...

Yes, hence "a lot" rather than "many". Your preposition (an absolute) was entirely based on an "if".

And straw-manning my argument into me supporting violence and intimidation is a bit weak. That's quite obviously not what I said.
 
Yes winning is 5/1
No winning is 2/11

The Yes vote percentage odds are interesting.Possible value if u believe the polls.
45.01%-50% is 10/11
40.01%-45% is 3/1
40% or under is 13/1
 
Halfmad said:
1 arrest? and you're comparing it to Afghanistan? You're a biased and blind at this idiots who had a go at the wife :p
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insult. As I said Some, not all, I was referring to some cases of intimidation being similar to what is seen in some countries who need the police to enforce order, that seems to be napping in some places in Scotland, it's not bias or blind or being an idiot, it's just what it is as shown in the articles you asked for...as for bias, I have none. Everyone should be free to vote in peace without prejudice or intimidation as far as I am concerned, no matter what you wish to vote for.

And shoving a smiley at the end of your post doesn't make it any less offensive.

And to illustrate my non-biased position, police were stationed in Tower Hamlets and other predominantly Asian areas in Bradford and others during local, European elections for similar reasons, although without incident from what I can gather...again a sad indictment on politics in that area that it is necessary to draft police to keep order in an election.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...g-station-bullies-at-European-elections-today
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
Yes, hence "a lot" rather than "many". Your preposition (an absolute) was entirely based on an "if".

And straw-manning my argument into me supporting violence and intimidation is a bit weak. That's quite obviously not what I said.
Click to expand...

You seem to strawmaning or trolling me...one If doesn't a Lot make.

If the police are there because of numbers and entry restrictions that is one thing (you suggested this was what was happening by saying police were called in a general election polling station), however if they are there because of voter intimidation then that is something else (which is what I said) You didn't know what the argument was over, I was referring to the reported cases.

It wasn't an absolute either, but then I would have thought that was obvious by the use of the term if we need the police to keep order, in the original post.

You need to wind your neck in.
 
Going to vote tonight, its a small village so its always quite calm......a bit inbred too ;) (see a smiley does fix everything)

Harassing someone over their voting preference is sheer idiocy, Yes or No it is their choice. I think that yes would be better but I don't think that someone voting no is wrong, they just see it differently to me......isn't that why we vote in the first place.

Both camps are passionate, both think they are right so I guess things could become heated, one guy whose name I have forgotten finished one of the many debates by saying something like "neither side is right or wrong, at the end of the day we all want what is best for Scotland" so far that is how I am looking at it. When this is all over we still need to get on with each other, yes or no.
 
Castiel said:
Thanks for the insult. As I said Some, not all, I was referring to some cases of intimidation being similar to what is seen in some countries who need the police to enforce order, that seems to be napping in some places in Scotland, it's not bias or blind or being an idiot, it's just what it is as shown in the articles you asked for...as for bias, I have none. Everyone should be free to vote in peace without prejudice or intimidation as far as I am concerned, no matter what you wish to vote for.

And shoving a smiley at the end of your post doesn't make it any less offensive.

And to illustrate my non-biased position, police were stationed in Tower Hamlets and other predominantly Asian areas in Bradford and others during local, European elections for similar reasons, although without incident from what I can gather...again a sad indictment on politics in that area that it is necessary to draft police to keep order in an election.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/47...g-station-bullies-at-European-elections-today
Click to expand...

I hope I haven't upset you too much, I'll just go back to my backwater Aghanistan-eque life in Scotghanistan. :p
 
Castiel said:
You seem to strawmaning or trolling me...one If doesn't a Lot make.

If the police are there because of numbers and entry restrictions that is one thing (you suggested this was what was happening by saying police were called in a general election polling station), however if they are there because of voter intimidation then that is something else (which is what I said) You didn't know what the argument was over, I was referring to the reported cases.

It wasn't an absolute either, but then I would have thought that was obvious by the use of the term if we need the police to keep order, in the original post.

You need to wind your neck in.
Click to expand...

I feel you're drawing me into a black hole of meaningless argument here. But here goes....

"A lot" is generally used with an indeterminate quantity. "Many" would be a determinate quantity. If your argument relies on one big "if", then that's a lot of "if" even if it isn't many "ifs". Your contention that it was "only two" simply sidesteps the point.

Next, I didn't suggest police were there because of numbers and entry restriction, simply that your preposition that their presence is a threat to democracy common to Scotland, Iraq, and Afganistan was missing that we get police attending polling stations here in England too, and I gave one recent example of that.

you've climbed down from your absolute opening statement, but are bringing factors into play to back it up which weren't on the table at the time. You quoted one guy saying he saw police at a polling station and decried the state of democracy in Scotland.

Your statement was an absolute in the sense that police keeping order has to be a sign of failing democracy. The "if" bit there was not saying "if" there was intimidation, simply "if" there was police attending to keep order.

I feel I've wasted a lot of time on that ^, but your style of arguing is quite difficult to contain. A lot of false directions.

Don't appreciate your final line either. I've been perfectly civil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom