Scottish Referendum Autumn 2018 - Spring 2019

Niggly - how can you tell who is or is not an ethnic Scot when there is no register to consult and we all have British passports? The Independence question has to be asked of everyone who is currently resident in Scotland (and on the electoral roll there) as these are the people who have a vested interest in Scotland's position today and in the future.

We are talking civic Nationalism here not the 'blood and soil' type. The 'People of Scotland' are those who live and work in Scotland and call it home.

What I can't understand, is why Scots living in other parts of the UK are denied a vote, and yet someone who has only been living in Scotland for a short period is! Even Turkey allows ex pats a vote, or am I missing something?!!

My two biggest fears for Brexit was Scotland kicking off and the risk of losing our Banking sector. Watch this space.

My husband asked me to-day if Wee Nicky was the little one in the Krankies; probably.

niggly and roses thank you for your continued support, i will raise a glass of Irn Bru to you both tonight.

You're quite right Gill57, but for DC's complete mishandling and arrogance when conducting the referendum we probably wouldn't be where we are particularly in Scotland.
Lots of people will never forgive him, problem is I doubt he now really cares! you know what they say, 'what doesn't affect you, doesn't bother you', and lets face it, the sad truth is that whatever the outcome all round, DC is so wealthy it simply won't affect him or his family.

It was the last sentence or two.

grannypiper am so glad that I wasn't drinking tea when I just read your post, as it made me laugh.Showed it to DH....made him laugh too.

well said nigglynellis, varian and grannypiper ( to name but few). I am a Scot living in England and I think that I should be consulted on whether I want Scotland to remain a part of the UK, and with few exceptions, my relatives still living in Scotland are sick and tired of Ms Sturgeon and her distraction techniques; stir up a bit of nationalism, blame Westminster for everything and hope that nobody mentions the catastrophic state of public services while they bang the drum. I also agree about the minimum percentages for referenda, anything which is changing the current situation should have at least 60% of the ELECTORATE not of those who turned out to vote, and in the case of the Brexit vote, that fool David Cameron really cocked it up. Firstly, he did not enfranchise 16 and 17 year olds as he allowed in the Scottish referendum on 2014, and secondly, he failed to recognise that the end of May is a time of flux for university students when they move out of rented property or halls of residence and return to their family homes, thus many a ballot paper was left in empty property. This is so fundamental that I just cannot believe his advisors did not 'advise' him, or was he so convinced of the result that he just didn't listen. That bloody man is responsible for the divisions in this country created by Brexit and I for one will never forgive him.

Grannypiper you've said it all, Thankyou. And nigglynellie so have you! ?

grannypiper, you have my support 100% as well as my sincere sympathy. Problem is I don't think your troubles will be over any time soon, sadly. But my support won't waver however long it takes!

grannypiper you sum up my feelings for me! Well said.

niggly i understand how you find the howls and indignant rage of the snp tiresome but please spare a thought for us poor Scots up here who are truly pee'd off at having had to listen to it on every news programme, read it in every newspaper and pick the leaflets full of braveheart blethering up off the doormat for the last 5 YEARS ! We are sick to the back teeth of the tripe and lies spouted by snp and are at breaking point over the snp's inability to get on with the day job that they are employed to do. Don't even start us on wee nicky flying about the country in a helicopter with a picture of her wee kranky face plastered on the side. We feel your pain niggly but ask for your support

I know varian and of course you are right, not all Scots by any manner of means want another, once in a generation, referendum! but listening to the SNP and their howls of indignant rage at being as they perceive it thwarted by wicked Westminster, when they've only just had the same referendum, is to say the least, tiresome! Mrs May of course is a much tougher cookie than D.C. who, let's face it gave way at every turn to Scottish demands, hoping, I suppose to be reasonable, when in fact he was being weak. Thank goodness he isn't dealing with this vexatious question any longer for Scotlands sake as well as the rest of us.

Absolutely agree with Pollaidh and Varian! People can't be compelled to vote ...

That is an understandable reaction, Nellie but please don't equate Scots people with the SNP. The majority said no and many more who wanted to say NO!!!!! weren't allowed a vote because we were in another part of our country.

Pity the rest of the UK can't have a vote, after all it does affect us all! Scotland would be gone in the blink of an eye guaranteed!!!!

Agreed Varian! I think we should just ban referendums and get down to the business of holding the government to account through Parliament!

It totally agree, Pollaidh, but you have used a lot of numbers in your argument. I happen to like numbers and don't find it difficult to understand that, although almost 52% of those that voted in the EU referendum wanted to Leave, that was only 37% of the electorate, so should never be called the "will of the people".

It is vital that those who want to destroy a Union, must have the support of a true substantial majority of the electorate (not just those who turned out on one day).

The problem is that many people are innumerate and the politicians and media twist figures to suit their agenda.

Yes, TriciaF, the Scottish Referendum was also advisory. I think that, if you are sincerely going to use a referendum to tell you the "settled will" of the people, then I think you need to make it conditional that the overall winning vote represents at least 50% of the electorate - which is not the same as 50% of those who cast a vote.
In the 1979 Devolution referendum, there was a 63% turnout, and the Yes vote was 51%, No 48%. On the face of it, therefore, the Yes vote won all those years ago. However, the condition was that at least 40% of the electorate had to vote yes, so the devolution bill was not carried.
In 2014: 55.3% of those who voted said No, 44.7% said Yes. That gives us a 10% majority for No, which in turn means that nationalists would need a swing of 5% between now and the next putative referendum, which they are already starting to campaign for.

But that’s not quite right. For a start, the turn-out was 84.59% of a total electorate of 4,283,392. This means that the Yes vote really captured just 37.78% of voters. That’s more than the 32.9% in 1979, when they captured 51.62% of the votes cast, but it’s still not much more than 1/3rd of the electorate. Turnout was lowest in the areas which returned an overall ‘Yes’. On the other hand, the ‘No’ only captured 46.7% of the vote — dramatically more than they got in 1979, when the total ‘No’ vote was 30.8%, but still not an outright majority. I think this gives a truer picture of "the will of the people".

Referendums were until recently, very unusual in this country. For good reason. Public opinion is not fixed over time. Opinion polls are a snapshot of the opinion at a moment in time. People can and should change their minds, and will often want to do so if they found out they have been misled by politicians and the media.

When we make a mistake at a general election, we get the opportunity to think again in five years time.

Constitutional changes are totally different. They may result in cataclysmic irreversible changes which is why the status quo should be preserved unless there is a substantial (usually at least two thirds) of the electorate in favour.

If the local gardening society can protect its constitution in this way, why on earth was David Cameron (ostensibly a well educated person) fail to protect the constitution by requiring the substantial majority - not just once, in 2014, but again, after he had been given advice, in 2016?

I think I've posted this before, but obody took any notice:
"A really crucial detail about the upcoming EU referendum has gone virtually unmentioned, and it is probably the most crucial detail: Parliament doesn't actually have to bring Britain out of the EU if the public votes for it.

That is because the result of the June 23 referendum on Britain's EU membership is not legally binding. Instead, it is merely advisory, and, in theory, could be totally ignored by the UK government."
Please note "merely advisory" I don't know if the same applies to the ref. on Scottish independence.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british-politics/referendums/
The link is to an interesting piece on referenda - detailing the benefits and the risks. It seems to me that the recent referenda in this country have reaped far more of the risks and none of the benefits:
. Referenda are inconsistent with the belief in parliamentary sovereignty.

2. Issues might be too complex for a mere yes/no vote or for the public to understand.

3. The regular use of referenda could lead to apathy among the public.

4. There are effective alternatives : opinion polls and by-elections.

5. A low turnout can distort results. Only 34% of those who could have voted in the “Do you want a Mayor for London?” actually voted. 72% of these voted ‘yes’, 28% voted ‘no’. But 66% of Londoners failed to vote at all. This low turn out clearly favoured the supporters of the Mayor.

6. The results of a referendum might not be decisive. For Welsh devolution there was a 51/49 split.

7. Funding differences can affect results as government money can pour into a referendum and the group on the other side may well be not so well financed.

8. Referenda might result in “the tyranny of the majority”. If the majority votes for it, does the government go ahead with it ? What about the wishes of the minority ? How are these safeguarded ?

What do others think?

When did singing and beating drums become an offence
They are not an offence but they are meant to be intimidating - why else were drums traditionally carried into battle?

People who came from elsewhere but happened to be living in Scotland, perhaps for a very short time were enfranchised but people like me, born and brought up in Scotland but living in another part of the UK, were disenfranchised.
I would like to be consulted, as I’m sure would many many other Scots who are happy to be British.
So do my (several) Scottish friends who moved to England and Wales for the purposes of work and may now want to retire back to Scotland.

Sorry, the link if anyone is interested in links!!
www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/on-target-the-netherlands-now-has-2200-wind-turbines/