Scots indy results thread

[littlebabyjesus]

Not even a majority wants to stay in the United Kingdom.

Come now. You cannot say this. Nearly half the entire electorate voted no. That's a pretty chunky section that expressed a preference. And a majority of those who voted - in a massive turnout - voted no. You seem to be in denial a bit about this, blaming the old, the misinformed, and now the racist.

 

[Tankus]

Plus the not registered ....so its about a third of the electorate that actively shows a YES preference ...
Should it be 2/3 s to make such a massive change ?
Otherwise there's bound to be substantial issues in the aftermath......when all the unanswered blustered issues ...get answered by reality .?

 

[weepiper]

Plus the not registered ....so its about a third of the electorate that actively shows a preference ...
Should it be 2/3 s to make such a massive change ?

What you think it 'should be' is irrelevant. The terms of the referendum were that a simple majority of those who turned out would be the result.

 

[treelover]

'sake. Given how many funerals I have been to for folk in their 50s and 60s I suppose its no surprise.

like given for comment, not the situation, which is appalling

 

[Quartz]

Plus the not registered ....so its about a third of the electorate that actively shows a YES preference ...

If you don't care enough to vote, you have no cause to complain about the result. If you did care enough to vote and your side lost, then part of the democratic process is respecting the will of the majority.

 

[treelover]

And the third flag? In this historic space, the heartland of the “Red Clyde” where the British government in 1919 sent tanks to attack a 90,000-strong workers’ demo, I didn’t see a single red flag. That, as far as this movement is concerned, has gone. No, the third flag was the estelada – the red and yellow banner of Catalan separatism. Wherever it appeared toted by actual Catalans, they were mobbed – so by the end, there were plenty being carried by shirtless Glaswegians. The symbolism, again, was clear – small nations of feisty people, fed up with remote elites, should stick together and disrupt the global order.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/what-now-scotland-young-yes-generation

Interesting comments from Paul Mason on events in Glasgow before the Indyref.

 

[DairyQueen]

Come now. You cannot say this. Nearly half the entire electorate voted no. That's a pretty chunky section that expressed a preference. And a majority of those who voted - in a massive turnout - voted no. You seem to be in denial a bit about this, blaming the old, the misinformed, and now the racist.

Of course its stupid to say that. Why not have a go at the guy spouting this 37% bollocks, that's what it was in response to. Or is that fine?

 

[DairyQueen]

Plus the not registered ....so its about a third of the electorate that actively shows a YES preference ...
Should it be 2/3 s to make such a massive change ?
Otherwise there's bound to be substantial issues in the aftermath......when all the unanswered blustered issues ...get answered by reality .?

So it is fine to press ahead with neoliberal carnage sitting on roughly 27% of the full electoral roll?

Unanswered bluster? Unanswered bluster does not make any sense. You have read 'bluster' and 'Salmond does not answer questions' in the press and merged them together. It does not work.

You really think there are no risks of staying in the UK? Do you really believe that?

 

[Tankus]

In tree lovers links comments

The pensioners in Scotland are taking a bit of a hammering for "selling the youth down the river", portrayed at feeble minded old nincompoops who when threatened with losing their pensions voted no en masse. Nothing at all to do with them being old enough and wise enough to be able know a snake oil salesman when they see one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So it is fine to press ahead with neoliberal carnage sitting on roughly 27% of the full electoral roll

What exactly do you think the SNP was proposing to do?

 

[DairyQueen]

What exactly do you think the SNP was proposing to do?

Declare independence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Declare independence.

What does that have to do with the planned neoliberal carnage?

 

[DairyQueen]

What does that have to do with the planned neoliberal carnage?

I never said it had anything to do with neoliberal carnage. I don't see the connection (other than that being one motivating factor in declaring independence). Maybe you can look into this parallel universe crystal ball and explain it to me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I never said it had anything to do with neoliberal carnage. I don't see the connection (other than that being one motivating factor in declaring independence). Maybe you can look into this parallel universe crystal ball and explain it to me.

You are suggesting that independence is a way to stop the neoliberal carnage. How? How would that have worked? Do you seriously doubt that the SNP would have got in to form the first government? What would they have done?

 

[DairyQueen]

You are suggesting that independence is a way to stop the neoliberal carnage. How? How would that have worked? Do you seriously doubt that the SNP would have got in to form the first government? What would they have done?

Considering it would have been on the back of working-class votes, I really doubt that their first objectives would be to punish those that got them independence. I have no idea why old Labour activists, or anyone else whose career does not depend it, wish to propagate such a fantasy.

 

[cesare]

If you don't care enough to vote, you have no cause to complain about the result. If you did care enough to vote and your side lost, then part of the democratic process is respecting the will of the majority.

I don't agree. Lack of voting doesn't necessarily indicate that people don't care - they might be saying "neither of the above".

 

[MrSki]

I don't agree. Lack of voting doesn't necessarily indicate that people don't care - they might be saying "neither of the above".

Agreed in an election but this argument does not really hold water in a two choice referendum.

 

[Quartz]

I don't agree. Lack of voting doesn't necessarily indicate that people don't care - they might be saying "neither of the above".

MrSki beat me to it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Considering it would have been on the back of working-class votes, I really doubt that their first objectives would be to punish those that got them independence. I have no idea why old Labour activists, or anyone else whose career does not depend it, wish to propagate such a fantasy.

It would have been on the backs of votes from across a spectrum of class. But being elected mainly by working-class voters didn't stop Blair and New Labour from shafting them. I heard similar noises from Salmond and the SNP to those of Blair's Labour pre-1997. Elect us and we'll be business-friendly. The rich have nothing to fear from us, but we'll run capitalism in a fairer way. Maybe. And maybe not.

His last conference speech contains some good rhetoric but little of substance, beyond that they're against a few things even many tories are against - private monopolies, for instance. The best he could say about raising the minimum wage was that he would 'work with the private sector' to raise it. He also couldn't bring himself to back striking workers. He was a populist leader above all else.

 

[cesare]

Agreed in an election but this argument does not really hold water in a two choice referendum.

Yes it does. You can't get rid of people's right to abstain just because you only present them with two choices.

 

[MrSki]

Yes it does. You can't get rid of people's right to abstain just because you only present them with two choices.

Surely if they wish to abstain in a referendum then it does indicate that they don't care?

 

[cesare]

Surely if they wish to abstain in a referendum then it does indicate that they don't care?

No. They might not like either of the choices and actively want something different to both.

 

[MrSki]

No. They might not like either of the choices and actively want something different to both.

"Should Scotland be an independent country" Yes or No? Are you suggesting that some voters wanted a union with France?

 

[cesare]

"Should Scotland be an independent country" Yes or No? Are you suggesting that some voters wanted a union with France?

Wtf has France got to do with it?

 

[MrSki]

Wtf has France got to do with it?

If they didn't agree with a Yes/No answer then

They might not like either of the choices and actively want something different to both.

They must have wanted something else, hence a union with France. What else do you mean by actively different to wanting or not wanting to be independent?

 

[cesare]

If they didn't agree with a Yes/No answer then

They must have wanted something else, hence a union with France. What else do you mean by actively different to wanting or not wanting to be independent?

Something else might be something as simple as "not yet". In any event, they're as worth polling as the people that said they would vote (but might not have done). So the France suggestion was an effort at sarcasm then?

 

[MrSki]

Something else might be something as simple as "not yet". In any event, they're as worth polling as the people that said they would vote (but might not have done). So the France suggestion was an effort at sarcasm then?

France & Scotland have strong historical links. Surely "not yet" equates to a no? I was struggling for another possible option that is not "don't care"

 

[cesare]

France & Scotland have strong historical links. Surely "not yet" equates to a no? I was struggling for another possible option that is not "don't care"

Well danny la rouge has previously mentioned the purist anarchism position and that's just one of the positions that might result in abstaining whilst still caring.

 

[DairyQueen]

It would have been on the backs of votes from across a spectrum of class. But being elected mainly by working-class voters didn't stop Blair and New Labour from shafting them. I heard similar noises from Salmond and the SNP to those of Blair's Labour pre-1997. Elect us and we'll be business-friendly. The rich have nothing to fear from us, but we'll run capitalism in a fairer way. Maybe. And maybe not.

His last conference speech contains some good rhetoric but little of substance, beyond that they're against a few things even many tories are against - private monopolies, for instance. The best he could say about raising the minimum wage was that he would 'work with the private sector' to raise it. He also couldn't bring himself to back striking workers. He was a populist leader above all else.

As many people in Scotland have argued, we can have these debates once we have a political culture. Yes Scotland were campaigning for Scotland to have its own politics. Labour is campaigning to turn Scotland into a massive docile Labour Party ballot stuffer.

 

[MrSki]

Well danny la rouge has previously mentioned the purist anarchism position and that's just one of the positions that might result in abstaining whilst still caring.

From other thread.

This anarchist voted Yes.