Will you vote for independence?

[Quartz]

Darling says tourists won't come to Scotland if it's independent. Or something. Not sure exactly what he is saying.

Darling: being part of Brand Britain is major benefit to Scotland's tourism industry

Darling's an idiot.

 

[danny la rouge]

You know it's all over when one side retreats to a maybe the polls are wrong position.

There isn't a side who have done this, though.

 

[DairyQueen]

Darling's an idiot.

Mr Darling made the comments as he took a cruise on Loch Lomond to mark the launch of Tourism Together

Tourism Together.

 

[Celyn]

Darling says tourists won't come to Scotland if it's independent. Or something. Not sure exactly what he is saying.

Darling: being part of Brand Britain is major benefit to Scotland's tourism industry

Cute. Doesn't that sound a bit similar to that old suggestion that the U.K. should never get rid of the monarchy because the royal lot bring all the tourism?

 

[DotCommunist]

I would be very surprised if the 16/17 year old vote makes any difference at all. In either polling or result.

why so? its a significant proportion of the vote surely. It'll count for something- perhaps not the ultimate voting bloc that sways the decision but a factor fairly new to modern electoral politics

 

[butchersapron]

why so? its a significant proportion of the vote surely. It'll count for something- perhaps not the ultimate voting bloc that sways the decision but a factor fairly new to modern electoral politics

Because they make up at most, with 100% turnout, 2-3% of the total vote. But the reality is that the younger the group the lower the turnout (looking a the polls , around 80% certain to vote outside of the 16-24 group and around 60% within), so you can guess 2% at best. And if split the way that the larger vote is they will make up 1% for each side roughly. Meaningless in terms of result.

(There has been some poll results and analysis recently that suggests a NO vote amongst the over 50s, a yes vote in the 20-50s and a No vote among the under 20).

 

[Quartz]

why so? its a significant proportion of the vote surely.

Absolutely. IMHO every single vote will be important.

 

[DotCommunist]

well now I know I am deffo wrong on the significance of the yoot vote

 

[DexterTCN]

Long term benefits of so many youngsters getting involved?

 

[weepiper]

No article yet but

 

[danny la rouge]

So many people have told me how great they think this piece is that I've been re-reading it to see what it is they like, as well as to try and put my finger on what it is I don't like (because I don't like it).

What do you think?

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...wanted-to-say-before-the-pudding-hit-the-fan/

 

[weepiper]

So many people have told me how great they think this piece is that I've been re-reading it to see what it is they like, as well as to try and put my finger on what it is I don't like (because I don't like it).

What do you think?

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/0...wanted-to-say-before-the-pudding-hit-the-fan/

I think the first part is good - to try and get No voters to really think about what happens after a No vote, that it's not going to be 'just the same' no matter what the outcome of the referendum is - but I don't like this part

Except of course, we’re going to be really, really annoying about it. We’re going to make you feel bad. We will be unbearable. Every single day, we’ll be reminding you. When the Tories make a formal or informal pact with UKIP and win the election in 2015, despite having no seats in Scotland? Your fault. When there is a vote to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay but we have to leave because middle England votes Yes? Your fault.

Sorry. That’s the way it’s going to be. In fact, I confidently predict that at dinner parties in Scotland in 2016 it will be impossible to find anyone who will admit to having voted No, so complex and disruptive and chaotic will be the consequences, so omnipresent will the border question be in every single dispute about everything. It will feel very bad to have actually voted for all that.

Pointless smug liberal behaviour dressed up as pseudo-radicalism.

Edit, I don't know if you've seen the play 'I, Tommy' but it reminds me of the smug Glasgow West End dinner party socialists sketch in that.

 

[Quartz]

It's fundamentally flawed. Here's the key bit:

Up until September the 18th, we have all been able to hide behind all that being someone else’s fault. Either way the vote goes, Yes or No, that comfortable position has already been shattered. Either we vote to take responsibility for our own economics , our own wealth distribution, our own decisions to make war or peace…or we are voting to mandate away control over all of these matters to Westminster forever.

Either way, we will be responsible.

Sorry, but everyone has to accept responsibility for the current situation. It's not "someone else's fault"; it's our choice. Yes voters cannot disclaim responsibility; they and everyone else are responsible.

 

[danny la rouge]

I also dislike this bit:

If a Yes voter has to take on board the moral hazard of whatever happens for good or ill in an independent Scotland, a No voter must equally accept moral responsibility for having given Westminster permanent permission to do whatever it likes forever. No questions asked.

Moral Hazard works both ways.

Whatever austerity measures are coming down the line, all those policies that weren’t your fault before September 18th? After September the 18th, they will be your fault. No. Sorry. Every single one of them. Will be your fault.

I don't like the implication that the citizens of a state are responsible for the behaviour of that state. It doesn't matter how the boundaries of the state fall, and how many self-identified ethnic, cultural or "national" groups find themselves within its boundaries. That's irrelevant, even after an in/out referendum.

His problem is that he is a nationalist. He is not only conflating population and state, geography and state, culture and state, he is ignoring class.

 

[danny la rouge]

It's fundamentally flawed. Here's the key bit:



Sorry, but everyone has to accept responsibility for the current situation. It's not "someone else's fault"; it's our choice. Yes voters cannot disclaim responsibility; they and everyone else are responsible.

I dislike it for exactly the opposite reason to you.

 

[gosub]

the way the debate has gone , is two camps, both being implausable. Winner will be the one with least votes against, not votes for. Carrying that forward seems daft


eta not only daft but how to leave permanent scars and rifts in society

 

[Quartz]

I don't like the implication that the citizens of a state are responsible for the behaviour of that state.

Huh? We live in a lawful democratic state. We are by definition responsible for the lawful actions of the State. If we don't like the actions of those we elect, we use democratic processes to remove them. And unlawful actions are subject to the courts.

the way the debate has gone , is two camps, both being implausable

Implausible? Do you rather mean implacable?

eta not only daft but how to leave permanent scars and rifts in society

That will depend upon how either camp accepts defeat. By its very raison d'etre, the SNP is going to continue campaigning for independence and will have to be very careful to not be seen as sore losers.

 

[danny la rouge]

Huh? We live in a lawful democratic state. We are by definition responsible for the lawful actions of the State.

a) So, you take full responsibility for all lawful actions of the state?
b) why just lawful actions?
c) do you include actions that were lawful at the time?

 

[DotCommunist]

the democracy part is debatable too.

 

[gosub]

no the white paper isn't a credible road map, and the scare stories (from both sides) beyond worst case scenario. Implausible was the word.

 

[weepiper]

I just nipped out to the shop. Two new Yes windaes on my street.

 

[Quartz]

a) So, you take full responsibility for all lawful actions of the state?

I accept my share of democratic responsibility. I may not like something - and indeed campaign against it - but I respect the democratic will of the majority. For example, if there's a strike vote and you vote for the strike and the majority vote against, you don't go on strike, do you?

b) why just lawful actions?

Unlawful actions are handled by the courts.

c) do you include actions that were lawful at the time?

For those of voting age and ability at the time. If the State is doing something lawful that I do not like, it's up to me to get the law changed. How often do you lobby your MP? (And for those things which were lawful and are now not, like slavery, I'm glad we've learned to be better.)

 

[DairyQueen]

no the white paper isn't a credible road map, and the scare stories (from both sides) beyond worst case scenario. Implausible was the word.

I think you seriously underestimate the impact of a Yes vote for both the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK. It will be a wake up call to Westminster, and the new right or righter politics has to change. A strong no vote would be nothing short of a disaster.

 

[DairyQueen]

That will depend upon how either camp accepts defeat. By its very raison d'etre, the SNP is going to continue campaigning for independence and will have to be very careful to not be seen as sore losers.

This is where you are wrong. Better Together has failed to propose a credible parliament that will satisfy Scots. They are proposing budget cuts and trying to shift blame. Because of this the SNP can argue, with credibility, that Westminster has to devolve genuine authority if they want to convince Scotland that they are serious about sharing power. They are quite clearly not willing to do so, and so the SNP will continue.

 

[Quartz]

This is where you are wrong.

That remains to be seen.

 

[DairyQueen]

Well maybe if they don't campaign explicitly for independence, but that was never their top priority for the last ten years or so.

 

[danny la rouge]

I accept my share of democratic responsibility. I may not like something - and indeed campaign against it - but I respect the democratic will of the majority.

So, you're even responsible for something you've campaigned against?

I'm responsible for the poll tax, the Iraq War, Thatcher's anti-union legislation, Labour's 28 day detention without trial, and all the other things I've actively campaigned against? I'm actually responsible for them?

For example, if there's a strike vote and you vote for the strike and the majority vote against, you don't go on strike, do you?

I might do, depending on the circumstances.

Unlawful actions are handled by the courts.

I don't follow: you're not responsible for unlawful actions of the state for the reason that those are handled by the courts? Well, first, they aren't always, secondly how do you arrive at that caveat? And thirdly, courts right up to the highest in the land carry out the laws enacted by parliament on behalf of the state, so courts are tools of the state not the other way round. You're responsible for all actions of the state except for those the courts take responsibility for? That's a new one on me.

For those of voting age and ability at the time.

So, no women are responsible for slavery, to take your example, but for one year from the Reform Act until Abolition, one in five adult males were responsible for slavery, but prior to 1822, far fewer men were responsible for slavery?

If the State is doing something lawful that I do not like, it's up to me to get the law changed.

And, if despite all your best efforts, it still isn't changed, you are responsible for the iniquity?

How often do you lobby your MP?

I harangue her from time to time for crap she supports, like the Welfare Cap, but it's about the most ineffective way to effect change, outside of Tweeting a selfie holding up a hashtag placard.

 

[Quartz]

So, you're even responsible for something you've campaigned against?

Yes. Collectively, not individually.

I'm responsible for the poll tax, the Iraq War, Thatcher's anti-union legislation, Labour's 28 day detention without trial, and all the other things I've actively campaigned against? I'm actually responsible for them?

Yes. It's part of being a democracy. We agree to respect the wishes of the majority, even when we don't like them.

I don't follow: you're not responsible for unlawful actions of the state for the reason that those are handled by the courts? Well, first, they aren't always, secondly how do you arrive at that caveat? And thirdly, courts right up to the highest in the land carry out the laws enacted by parliament on behalf of the state, so courts are tools of the state not the other way round. You're responsible for all actions of the state except for those the courts take responsibility for? That's a new one on me.

Unlawful acts are subject to the courts and it's the juries - i.e. the people - that pass verdict.

 

[DairyQueen]

Quartz, that's a load of nonsense. That is like saying anyone who voted in the 1972 American presidential election should 'collectively' be impeached.

Furthermore, in Britain we are royal subjects, and the parliament act on behalf of the queen. Lizzie does not need to abide by popular wishes.

You are living in a fantasy world.

 

[weepiper]

Poll showing the swing required for a Yes vote has dropped from 13 percentage points in September last year to 5 percentage points now.