The Scottish Independence referendum

[saintbletch]

This has given him the opportunity that he wanted - nay needed - to do exactly that. Expect to see the English promised more power to control what happens in England without "interference" from the rest of the UK and (true or not) Brussels in an attempt to win support and votes back from UKIP in advance of next May.

 

Far from being "done for" as people suggested here just 2 days ago, Cameron will probably come out of this strengthened both within his party and English (at least) politics.

 

Early days on that front I'd say, but yes I'd acknowledge that I didn't see this move coming, or rather I hadn't appreciated its potential significance in helping Cameron to his feet. But...

 

Just heard an interesting interview with Boris on 5 Live a moment ago.

 

Said some provocative things including (para.):

 

"I gave no such vow..."

 

He then went on to exhibit one of his trademark, coreographed dumb-plays, where he used a tandem as a metaphor suggesting that Scottish and English devolution should go together, one wheel after the other like a tandem, before asking how many wheels a tandem had "It's three isn't it?".

 

The consensus was that Boris might be suggesting that if there were a change of leader in the Tory party, and that if he were to be that leader, then he wouldn't be bound by any vow.

 

The tandem bit at the end was classic Johnson so he could dismiss his earlier remark as the prattlings of a bumbling fool. I'm not so sure...

 

So Dave might be able to fight off some of the bastards outside the tent, but he better check that Boris is stood next to him on the inside first.

[Whitey Grandad]

He then went on to exhibit one of his trademark, coreographed dumb-plays, where he used a tandem as a metaphor suggesting that Scottish and English devolution should go together, one wheel after the other like a tandem, before asking how many wheels a tandem had "It's three isn't it?".

 

The consensus was that Boris might be suggesting that if there were a change of leader in the Tory party, and that if he were to be that leader, then he wouldn't be bound by any vow.

 

The tandem bit at the end was classic Johnson so he could dismiss his earlier remark as the prattlings of a bumbling fool. I'm not so sure...

 

So Dave might be able to fight off some of the bastards outside the tent, but he better check that Boris is stood next to him on the inside first.

 

Wouldn't that be a libdem and not a tandem?

 

Boris is not that stupid, as a classicist he knows how many wheels it has. Tandem is Latin for 'at length'.

[saintbletch]

Salmond announces decision to stand down.

[OldNick]

Salmond announces decision to stand down.

things get better

[buctootim]

things get better

 

Not really, Sturgeon is even worse.

[Window Cleaner]

Not really, Sturgeon is even worse.

 

Are there any Scottish political leaders that don't have fishy sort of names, bit of a trend developping there.

[Batman]

The chinese state broadcaster has stated that this is a demonstration on how too much democracy is incredibly unstable given the sheer uncertainty with the will of just 1.6m people

[hypochondriac]

The chinese state broadcaster has stated that this is a demonstration on how too much democracy is incredibly unstable given the sheer uncertainty with the will of just 1.6m people

 

My parents were in China last week. They said the level of propaganda over there is staggering led by the state broadcaster so this isn't particularly surprising.

[Viking Warrior]

Edinburgh were controlling the election announcements . Orkney were read to declare just after 1 but Edinburgh held it up and they eventually allowed to declare the result at 2 and when they had a tv shot

These things happen but from a conspiracy point Orkney had the highest % of no votes . Perhaps Edinburgh delayed it as they were too embarrassed with the outcome ? And the impact it would have on the salmond foot soldiers

 

I was surprised how big the margin was up here . The yes were very confident up here

[Lorne Malvo]

[CB Fry]

Edinburgh were controlling the election announcements . Orkney were read to declare just after 1 but Edinburgh held it up and they eventually allowed to declare the result at 2 and when they had a tv shot

These things happen but from a conspiracy point Orkney had the highest % of no votes . Perhaps Edinburgh delayed it as they were too embarrassed with the outcome ? And the impact it would have on the salmond foot soldiers

 

I was surprised how big the margin was up here . The yes were very confident up here

Err, so what did this delay until 2am conspiracy achieve then?

[Batman]

Well, looks like it's going to be a fun night in Glasgow. lol

[alpine_saint]

Salmond announces decision to stand down.

 

If anything proves once-and-for all that this whole referendum, which threatens to leave Scotland divided and in a sectarian mess, was Salmonds vanity project, this is it.

 

If he really cared about Scotland, he would have stayed and fought for the best deal possible from Westminster.

 

He has effectively turned his back on Scotland at the time it needed him most.

[buctootim]

If anything proves once-and-for all that this whole referendum, which threatens to leave Scotland divided and in a sectarian mess, was Salmonds vanity project, this is it. If he really cared about Scotland, he would have stayed and fought for the best deal possible from Westminster..

 

Thats wrong. Salmond was always a gradualist - he wanted to incrementally increase devolved powers over time. It was Cameron's idea, in the wake of the SNP majority win in the 2011 Scottish elections to hold a referendum, back Salmond into a corner, win the referendum easily and put to bed the whole question of Scottish devolution.

 

This is a Cameron made disaster - now everybody wants reform and is kicking up.

[Whitey Grandad]

If anything proves once-and-for all that this whole referendum, which threatens to leave Scotland divided and in a sectarian mess, was Salmonds vanity project, this is it.

 

If he really cared about Scotland, he would have stayed and fought for the best deal possible from Westminster.

 

He has effectively turned his back on Scotland at the time it needed him most.

 

That's my interpretation. His resignation proves to me that he was doing all this for himself. I see Tony Blair in the same light, he could have stayed and used all his experience and expertise to help his country and his party but he scuttled off the first chance he had to go and make some money.

[buctootim]

That's my interpretation. His resignation proves to me that he was doing all this for himself. I see Tony Blair in the same light, he could have stayed and used all his experience and expertise to help his country and his party but he scuttled off the first chance he had to go and make some money.

 

It really isnt. Its well documented Salmond wanted a 'more powers' referendum and that Cameron refused. Cameron wanted a simple in or out vote - and in order to secure that he stupidly gave up both the right to choose the vote date and the right to phrase the referendum question. "Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country?" was cleverly phrased as pollsters know voters prefer to agree and say 'yes' rather than 'no'. If the question had been "Do you agree Scotland will be more successful within the United Kingdom?" the vote margin would have been 4-8 points higher.

[Torres]

Thats wrong. Salmond was always a gradualist - he wanted to incrementally increase devolved powers over time. It was Cameron's idea, in the wake of the SNP majority win in the 2011 Scottish elections to hold a referendum, back Salmond into a corner, win the referendum easily and put to bed the whole question of Scottish devolution.

 

This is a Cameron made disaster - now everybody wants reform and is kicking up.

 

It was only a matter of time before the inequality of power following Scottish and Welsh devolution brought us to the point where the English demanded similar and the provinces demanded even more. Something, at some point, was going to bring us here, it was inevitable. This isn't Cameron-made, we started down this road under Blair.

 

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, either. It's definitely no disaster, imo.

[buctootim]

It was only a matter of time before the inequality of power following Scottish and Welsh devolution brought us to the point where the English demanded similar and the provinces demanded even more. Something, at some point, was going to bring us here, it was inevitable. This isn't Cameron-made, we started down this road under Blair.

 

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, either. It's definitely no disaster, imo.

 

Britain is still the most centralised country in Europe, so I agree devolution is no bad thing. Forced panic and knee jerk reactions is no way to tackle constitutional reform though. My point really was about very poor judgement and political skills by Cameron. He has brought about the very thing he was trying to avoid - increased devolution - and now its not just in Scotland but across the UK.

Edited 19 September, 2014 by buctootim

[SuperMikey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBZi6HqDwcQ

 

Hmmmm...

[Batman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762876/Union-flag-waving-demonstrators-make-Nazi-salute-Glasgow-victory-celebrations-Police-separate-rival-groups-tension-increases.html

 

usual night out then, for some

[LGTL]

Civil war!

[Sour Mash]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762876/Union-flag-waving-demonstrators-make-Nazi-salute-Glasgow-victory-celebrations-Police-separate-rival-groups-tension-increases.html

 

usual night out then, for some

The photos in that article are just so Glasgow

[LGTL]

England game up there in November might be fun.

[View From The Top]

England game up there in November might be fun.

 

The last one was great fun.

[Torres]

My point really was about very poor judgement and political skills by Cameron. He has brought about the very thing he was trying to avoid - increased devolution - and now its not just in Scotland but across the UK.

 

If it was really was poor judgement and political skills he's been extremely lucky - he can come out of this with his party and his position being markedly stronger than before.

BTW - Labour look really quite ****ed here. They've seen a huge swing away from them in Scotland that will probably follow through to next May. They've seen Milliband promise more power to Scotland and Brown make his passionate plea and promise of the same but are now dragging their feet over promising the same in England which could cost the big votes down here too. Ooooops. At least they have a popular, dynamic, inspirational leader....

Edited 19 September, 2014 by Torres

[Tokyo-Saint]

The photos in that article are just so Glasgow

 

Rangers ****s.

[ART]

In 1296 the Scots aristocracy and old folk caved in to Edward 1st and swore allegiance and signed the Ragman Rolls but to the younger generation that was just the beginning of the fight for Independence

 

[farawaysaint]

In 1296 the Scots aristocracy and old folk caved in to Edward 1st and swore allegiance and signed the Ragman Rolls but to the younger generation that was just the beginning of the fight for Independence

 

 

Pretty much exactly as expected demographically then. I remember my first election, I voted idealistically as well

[hypochondriac]

Pretty much exactly as expected demographically then. I remember my first election, I voted idealistically as well

 

Shows the utter folly of allowing 16 year old to vote.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If it was really was poor judgement and political skills he's been extremely lucky - he can come out of this with his party and his position being markedly stronger than before.

BTW - Labour look really quite ****ed here. They've seen a huge swing away from them in Scotland that will probably follow through to next May. They've seen Milliband promise more power to Scotland and Brown make his passionate plea and promise of the same but are now dragging their feet over promising the same in England which could cost the big votes down here too. Ooooops. At least they have a popular, dynamic, inspirational leader....

 

Labour seem to be attempting to sidestep the prospect of a (Tory dominated) English Parliament by promoting the idea of devolving more power to the English regions. The problem with that idea is that these regional groupings they propose don't really exist in the hearts and minds of the English people in anything like same way that genuine historic nations, such as Wales or Scotland, do to their people.

 

Say for instance in this part of the UK we drew a arbitrary line on the map and called it 'Wessex' for want of a better name. The Westminster establishment then devolved some relatively minor powers to this administrative area and held elections to decide who should govern it. History always interests me, but I'm pretty damn sure than King Alfred and the Anglo-Saxons are not subjects that resonate much with the common people of southern England anymore. Indeed, I dare say that if you asked the man in the street what 'Wessex' was he'd probably answer that it is the name of a utility company. This invented thing our politicians have created wouldn't be seen as a real nation that we southerners can identify with, but merely yet another level of unwanted local government - and let's face it the English people care so little about their local politics that comparatively few of us even bother voting in council elections anymore.

 

No, we cannot fudge this issue and I say the English nation will have to have its own Parliament just like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now have. Within the constraints of our EU membership democracy demands that what is distinctly English legislation must be determined by English MP's elected by the English people. If the Labour party don't much like that idea then perhaps they'd do well to concentrate on convincing the people why we should trust them with our economy again ... or even deciding to choose the right brother to lead them next time.

Edited 20 September, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[buctootim]

Pretty much exactly as expected demographically then. I remember my first election, I voted idealistically as well

 

Doesnt explain why the 18-24 group are so much lower than both the 16-17s and the 25-34s though. Wonder why that is.

[pap]

Decent piece on Labour's mistakes during the referendum.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/18/labour-lessons_n_5846282.html?1411147731

 

Some senior Labour figures aren't happy with the style or substance of the pro-union effort. "The truth of the matter is that we couldn't have designed a worse fúcking campaign," a disgruntled member of the shadow cabinet tells me. "It was shocking."

 

He points to the relentlessly negative tone employed by 'No' campaigners, the lateness of the so-called devo-max offer, the obsessive focus on economics rather than identity, and the failure of Labour campaigners to distance themselves from the "toxic Tories".

 

Despite the referendum being held in Labour's Scottish heartland - where party founder Keir Hardie was born, where three of the last four Labour leaders were born, and where the Opposition currently holds 41 of the 59 parliamentary seats - there was little sign that the party had a clear grip on it message or its policies.

 

"Scottish Labour is fúcked," says another shadow cabinet minister, who also went up to campaign north of the border. "They've proved they can't organise a ****-up in a brewery."

 

This piece at the end is interesting. I've been saying this for a while, but many Labour party people refuse to see it:-

 

The Labour strategist warns me that his party is "living on borrowed time. We're losing working-class supporters all the time; in the north to the Scottish nationalists and in the south to Ukip."

 

Has Miliband's Labour ceded the populist, anti-establishment ground to Farage's Ukip?

 

"We just look like an establishment party," explains a frustrated frontbencher, who says Miliband's message of change and reform is falling on deaf ears because he isn't matching his radical rhetoric with action. Labour is so keen to look like a serious, responsible, alternative government-in-waiting that it has ceded the populist, anti-establishment ground to the SNP in Scotland, Ukip and the Greens in England and - in Bradford, at least - George Galloway.

[Whitey Grandad]

As a letter in today's time says, Salmond seems to have succeeded in dividing the Scots and uniting the English. Who'd have thought it.

[View From The Top]

Decent piece on Labour's mistakes during the referendum.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/18/labour-lessons_n_5846282.html?1411147731

 

 

 

This piece at the end is interesting. I've been saying this for a while, but many Labour party people refuse to see it:-

 

I'd agree with the end bit. I've moved to The Greens as they are a left of centre party who want an EU referendum.

[Patrick Bateman]

The photos in that article are just so Glasgow

 

Celtic vs Rangers ...

[Torres]

The mayor of Liverpool was on R5 this morning calling for huge amounts of power to be devolved to him because he knows what Liverpool needs. He wanted to keep all the tax revenue from Liverpool (and to hell with rural areas on the edges of the region, presumably) and set up some sort of socialist Republic. Scary stuff but probably music to Pap's ears. Not even sure it wasn't pap, tbh...

[saintbletch]

Shows the utter folly of allowing 16 year old to vote.

 

Would this statement mean that you're happy for them contribute to society through taxation, but not vote on how any tax they pay is spent?

 

I'm not sure about the figures anyway (see below), but anything that engages 16 years olds in the voting process can only be a good thing in my opinion.

 

Doesnt explain why the 18-24 group are so much lower than both the 16-17s and the 25-34s though. Wonder why that is.

 

I thought the same BTT, and I'd also heard anecdotally that the "youth" vote was No, so I went to try to find the figures.

 

I couldn't find the results represented in the same way as they are shown in the "17% of 16-17 year olds..." chart below, but I think I found the complete study from where they were extracted. It's certainly from the same polling 'organisation' - Lord Ashcroft Polls.

 

*This poll was taken on the 18th and 19th September with a sample of 2047 adults who voted in the referendum (method: 831 online, 1216 telephone).

 

It looks like it is the same data set as the result below, except that the data for the 16-24 year old category has been broken out into two categories - 16-17 (a two year span) and 18-24 (a 6 year span).

 

The problem with this is that the sample counts are very low for the bottom two ranges:

* Taken from the raw data analysis here.

 

That 16-24 (8 year span) category has a sample size of 98, each of the other (10 year span) categories has between 263 and 488 responses.

 

Or put another way, the headline "71% of 16-17 year olds vote Yes" which is the takeaway from the chart that ART posted, really means that "10 young people voted Yes from a sample of 2047". I'm sure statisticians would be better placed to comment on the rigour of such small sample size, but to my eye that seems too low to reach any representative conclusion.

 

I suppose that these age group ratios may be representative of the age groups that voted across the referendum. i.e. ~7 people out of every 1000 that voted were in the age range 16-17. If not then it would perhaps show the folly of taking data visualisations at face value.

 

Finally, to your point of the apparent blip in the 25-34 range, if you reassemble the data as 16-24 you do get a smoothing of the Yes vote trend, but interestingly you still see an unusual spike in the 25-34 year old category. These figures also do not support what I thought I'd heard - that the youth vote was No.

[saintbletch]

More analysis from the poll below.

 

[pap]

The mayor of Liverpool was on R5 this morning calling for huge amounts of power to be devolved to him because he knows what Liverpool needs. He wanted to keep all the tax revenue from Liverpool (and to hell with rural areas on the edges of the region, presumably) and set up some sort of socialist Republic. Scary stuff but probably music to Pap's ears. Not even sure it wasn't pap, tbh...

 

Joe Anderson has no case for Liverpool, and is somewhat of a laughing stock in the city for various reasons. He is nicknamed "two bins" Joe, has moved us all to fortnightly bin collection, caught a load of shíte for closing the libraries down and has recently had his house picketed for using Liverpool's tax payer cash to fund G4S contracts.

 

There is a much better case to be made for Merseyside, and it could be argued that we've been doing that for a while anyway. Emergency services and the OB are all tied to Merseyside. The mass transit system within the region is cheap, although the de-regulated buses are not. There are 1.38 million people living in the area, which is more than the whole of Northern Ireland, which stands at around 1.1m.

 

Same thing could be said for any of the big conurbation authorities, like Greater Manchester (2.7 million) or West Midlands (5.6million). These are not small amounts of people, represent areas of shared culture and concerns, and in many cases, will know better than Westminster about what their communities need.

 

The regional assemblies idea flopped when put to the public in 2004, but I do think we lost something when the metropolitan councils were abolished, leaving us in the odd position of having metropolitan counties with no overall council, powers devolved to individual boroughs. Would have been the most "natural" way to devolve powers in England, imo.

[buctootim]

Would this statement mean that you're happy for them contribute to society through taxation, but not vote on how any tax they pay is spent?

 

I'm not sure about the figures anyway (see below), but anything that engages 16 years olds in the voting process can only be a good thing in my opinion.

 

 

 

I thought the same BTT, and I'd also heard anecdotally that the "youth" vote was No, so I went to try to find the figures.

 

I couldn't find the results represented in the same way as they are shown in the "17% of 16-17 year olds..." chart below, but I think I found the complete study from where they were extracted. It's certainly from the same polling 'organisation' - Lord Ashcroft Polls.

 

*This poll was taken on the 18th and 19th September with a sample of 2047 adults who voted in the referendum (method: 831 online, 1216 telephone).

 

It looks like it is the same data set as the result below, except that the data for the 16-24 year old category has been broken out into two categories - 16-17 (a two year span) and 18-24 (a 6 year span).

 

The problem with this is that the sample counts are very low for the bottom two ranges:

* Taken from the raw data analysis here.

 

That 16-24 (8 year span) category has a sample size of 98, each of the other (10 year span) categories has between 263 and 488 responses.

 

Or put another way, the headline "71% of 16-17 year olds vote Yes" which is the takeaway from the chart that ART posted, really means that "10 young people voted Yes from a sample of 2047". I'm sure statisticians would be better placed to comment on the rigour of such small sample size, but to my eye that seems too low to reach any representative conclusion.

 

I suppose that these age group ratios may be representative of the age groups that voted across the referendum. i.e. ~7 people out of every 1000 that voted were in the age range 16-17. If not then it would perhaps show the folly of taking data visualisations at face value.

 

Finally, to your point of the apparent blip in the 25-34 range, if you reassemble the data as 16-24 you do get a smoothing of the Yes vote trend, but interestingly you still see an unusual spike in the 25-34 year old category. These figures also do not support what I thought I'd heard - that the youth vote was No.

 

 

Interesting point about the sample size for the 16-24 year olds. It could certainly explain the 'out of pattern' figures. Whats most interesting though imo is that more than half of the YES voters decided relatively recently (ie less than 12 months) whilst the NO voters have felt that way from the outset. That would indicate a very poor campaign from the Unionists, as has been reported. The other striking finding is that YES voters put the principle of self government above whether or not Scotland would be more or less prosperous in future as an independent country.

[Batman]

I see salmond finishes as he started. Banning various reporters and papers in his final press conference. The Guardian boycotted out of prinicple

[moonraker]

Be interesting to see the shenanigans if they created a self governing Solent conurbation!

[mack rill]

The mayor of Liverpool was on R5 this morning calling for huge amounts of power to be devolved to him because he knows what Liverpool needs. He wanted to keep all the tax revenue from Liverpool (and to hell with rural areas on the edges of the region, presumably) and set up some sort of socialist Republic. Scary stuff but probably music to Pap's ears. Not even sure it wasn't pap, tbh...

 

What tax? every scouser iv'e ever known thinks the world owes them a living, and there all on the chat!

[Polaroid Saint]

Be interesting to see the shenanigans if they created a self governing Solent conurbation!

[pap]

What tax? every scouser iv'e ever known thinks the world owes them a living, and there all on the chat!

Bread is over 30 years old, and wasn't true at the time

[aintforever]

England game up there in November might be fun.

 

Especially as it's at Celtic Park.

[badgerx16]

 

Return power to the true capital of our nation - Winchester.

[Batman]

I see salmond is now saying 'westminster' has duped scotland over new powers.....

 

they clearly will get new powers (it wont be enough for some) but it will be the English that will get shafted on that front. which is where the debate lies (not scotland)

 

but, will the average NED in glasgow or someone from dundee be aware when these new powers kick in..? will it effect them in anyway?

same for us in England...will it really matter?

[Viking Warrior]

How shallow and deluded is salmond

 

Salmond: 'No' voters were 'tricked'

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond says "No" voters in last week's referendum were "tricked" by a late vow of more devolved powers.

 

we were not tricked . It was because he wouldn't answer the questions instead just bullied or rubbished every counter argument put forward .

 

What an arrogant tosser .

[saintbletch]

I see salmond is now saying 'westminster' has duped scotland over new powers.....

 

they clearly will get new powers (it wont be enough for some) but it will be the English that will get shafted on that front. which is where the debate lies (not scotland)

 

but, will the average NED in glasgow or someone from dundee be aware when these new powers kick in..? will it effect them in anyway?

same for us in England...will it really matter?

 

Well in a future Scotland with devolved tax raising powers, I guess your average man in the street might have another line on his payslip showing ScotTax or similar. It may also cost them more to fill up with petrol, or file a corporation tax return. Equally it may cost him less to educate his children and look after elderly relatives. As a result of these different tax policies, Scotland might be a socially fairer place - or equally it might be a less fair place depending on the ruling party and your point of view.

 

How shallow and deluded is salmond

 

Salmond: 'No' voters were 'tricked'

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond says "No" voters in last week's referendum were "tricked" by a late vow of more devolved powers.

 

we were not tricked . It was because he wouldn't answer the questions instead just bullied or rubbished every counter argument put forward .

 

What an arrogant tosser .[/QUOTe]

Strip away the emotion though, and he's technically right, isn't he? From the outside this is how I saw it.

 

A vow was given by the three leaders which would have impacted the result; convincing wavering voters to move to the No camp - even if only in a small way.

 

That vow appeared unconditional and not contingent on other things happening.

 

Mr Brown, by then the de facto spokesperson for the No campaign, went on to commit to broad delivery dates for these promises. Nobody saw fit to contradict Mr Brown at the time he made these commitments.

 

Mr Cameron has now rolled up and linked greater devolution of power to Scotland, with an overhaul of how England is represented in Westminster (as well as the other regions). Mr Miliband has distanced himself from that process saying it wasn't what he signed up to - and that he instead wants English devolution at a far more granular civic level, and to my knowledge Mr Clegg has said the square root of **** all of significance on the matter.

 

Of course Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are playing politics here, because each knows that the stakes are massive and that they can blame the other for screwing over Scotland in the process. In the mean time, the trustworthy Mr Brown has said that he, and he alone will ensure that promises are kept.

 

The net result is that the vow appears broken and that the Scottish people were misled. Whether that was willfully the case, depends on how charitable you are feeling and upon which side of the political divide you stand.