Scottish Referendum Autumn 2018 - Spring 2019

Well, here are some calculations. www.reuk.co.uk/wordpress/wind/calculation-of-wind-power/ I haven't read it in detail (too much else to do today) but someone who can follow the maths may be able to answer the question.

I suspect it all depends on the size of the wind turbine, the surfave area of the blades, and how windy it is in the situation for what proportion of the time.

FarNorth if someone posts in capitals (ie shouting at other posters) in one long paragraph with scarcely any punctuation I think a fair assessment of the post would be rant

Rant: Definition - 'speak or shout at length in an impassioned way'
Synonym: tirade, diatribe, harangue, broadside, onslaught

Thankyou MawBroon. I hope others will read this post and believe what the Icelandic Foreign Minister, and others, are saying. I hope the leaders of the SNP believe it too.
As for rants only being rants when they're something we disagree with I think that's a bit disingenuous. "Shouty capitals" are clearly written rants but I would prefer that than having them shouted in my face - as has happened - or being sneered at for "not bothering to vote" (in the EU Ref) which I did (Remain) but was not prepared to disclose what was, after all, a secret ballot. Surely writing "won" in capitals and inverted commas also indicates a rant and the implication that the No voters hadn't won? The No voters did win.
Scotland returned 56 MPs to Westminster. My belief is that they did that because having got the Independence Referendum out of the way they hoped their MPs would do the job they were elected to do - represent their constituents - rather than having independence as their only interest. There is no support for the Tories here in Scotland and the Labour Party is in disarray, so many people feel they have no alternative but to vote SNP.
The saddest thing is that whatever way another Independence Referendum goes Scotland has been irreparably divided. If Independence is gained we are in for years of uncertainty. If we remain part of the UK the SNP and its followers will refuse to accept it and will simply wait for another opportunity to raise the issue.
As for what we pay into the UK - what about the Barnett formula standing currently (from memory) at £3m a week?
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant. Please read it as coming from someone who is genuinely saddened by what is happening in Scotland.

And another from a Google link, 2015:

"Scotch Whisky accounts for around a quarter of UK food and drink exports."

population of scottish cities
www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usscotfax/geography/townscities.html

from a wind turbine
1 megawatt powers 550 homes so say 1000 people?

The giant ones currently do 6 megawatts. So approx 6000 people. Absolutely nowhere near enough to power a scottish city, as far as I know.

My figures may be a little out - people are more than welcome to check them out.

And that includes what I drink? ???

I presume a country's application to join the EU would need the unanimous agreement of all other member countries. I understand that Spain may block Scotland's entry were it ever to apply as an independent country because the Spanish government does not want any separatist movements to be encouraged in Spain.

I believe that in 2014 David Cameron was recklessly irresponsible when he allowed the first Scottish Indyref to be run the way it was. It looked to me as if he was bending over backwards to help the separatists for selfish party political reasons – he knew the SNP were able to damage the Labour Party.

He allowed them to choose the date - Bannockburn anniversary and more significantly the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow where Scottish athletes wore a Saltire, not a Union Jack.

He allowed them to choose the franchise – including sixteen year olds (which I actually do not object to in principle but it certainly helped the separatists and was not allowed in the EU referendum). 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.

He allowed them to choose the question. “Should Scotland be an independent country?” giving the SNP the huge advantage of being able to campaign for “Yes”. Two years later when Cameron wanted to ask the British people “Should the UK remain in the EU?”, this was disallowed by the Electoral Commission which ruled that it would give the Remain side the unfair advantage of the answer “Yes”. Where was the Electoral Commission when we needed it in 2014?

He allowed the result to rest on a bare majority of those who turned out on a single day. Constitutional change should never happen without a substantial (perhaps two thirds) majority for change.

I am utterly horrified at the prospect of Brexit, and to compound it with the threat of Scexit is quite appalling.

Nationalism is a corruption of patriotism, based on cultivating grievances and scapegoating the “others”. It causes bitter divisions which are hard to heal.

We must campaign to stop this happening and if it ever does happen not allow the nationalists to enjoy the unfair advantages they had the last time. The question, if it has to be asked, should be put the other way round “Should Scotland Remain in the UK?”. I would like to be consulted, as I’m sure would many many other Scots who are happy to be British. We do not want to be told by the SNP that we are now foreigners in our own country.

nobody is telling you you're a "foreigner in your own country" In Scotland we have CIVIC nationalism its not blood and earth nationalism ,and for the record I have just trawled through a multitude of pages of Police Scotland reports on Independence Rallies and there was NOT ONE where pubic disorder was mentioned ..apart from the one that had to be cancelled because tha ORANGE ORDER published their intent to demonstate at the same place and time and the day AFTER the vote when 11 UNIONISTS were arrested for causing trouble,burning Saltires and harrassing passers by ,I'm sorry your old lady was hassled by someone on a stand in Ayr ..but she should have taken her complaint to both the police and the SNP ,When there was a final rally before the vote and the numbers were expected to be in the tens of thousands the Chief constable told the BBC that "any idea of public disorder was ridiculous"That there had not been any trouble at any rally or march.When did singing and beating drums become an offence

I am sorry to tell you padyann that if you are representative of people you call "English Scots" you are doing them no service.

I am reminded of the shouty protestations of brainwashed converts to some fundamentalist religious cult.

paddyann, you need to check out what you write. Not just lift things from all sorts of places, while having little idea if what you are passing on is correct.

So are you suggesting that the hooligans we encountered in Dumfries were a figment of my imagination paddyann? Is it possible that Police Scotland have a particularly high tolerance level when it comes to pubic offences (below the belt, I know but your own words). Knowing what we know now about "police reports" (Hillsborough, the miners strike etc.) I would be reluctant to take their reports as gospel anyway.

Singing and beating drums is not an offence when carried out in a concert hall, but when it is carried out by hundreds of flag waving, face painted yobs in an intimidating manner who were deliberately bused into the middle peaceful family day out it is a very different matter.

Varian you have summed the whole situation up eloquently and succinctly to my mind. It all goes back to the vanity of David Cameron, and I used to flinch every time he hopped on a plane and stood hectoring the Scottish Electorate; I always felt a few more undecided voters swung towards independence when he did that. This whole breaking away from Europe and potential break up of the United Kingdom is a TRAGEDY ( not just you can use shouty capitals paddyann). As a first generation Scot, with a very very long and proud Scottish heritage, I am saddened by this situation, and I wonder how my uncles and great uncles, proud Scots all, who died in the First and Second World Wars, fighting in the British Army albeit in Scottish regiments, would feel about this debacle?Oh, and just to aggravte you even more paddyann your electricity and wind power claims are bonkers and almost laughable, whiff of desperation methinks?

Thank you Gill. As you can tell I feel very strongly about this. I am a Liberal Democrat and I know that Tim Farron and Willie Rennie will campaign against this but I wish I knew what else we can do.

and for the record I have just trawled through a multitude of pages of Police Scotland reports on Independence Rallies and there was NOT ONE where pubic disorder was mentioned
(My bold)

I should hope not too!!

I've just come from meeting a group of friends, about ten of us, and not one of us, either pro-or-anti-independence, English or Scots, wanted Indyref2. Everyone said they want a period of stability and to not be confronted with all the political arguments again.

We've got Referendum Fatigue, I think.

NS said there wouldn't be another referendum until the Scottish people decide. I guess she meant not until the SNP MSPs decide. Just a slip of the tongue I suppose.

Scotland was exporting electricity to England virtually all of the time.
I think there is little doubt that Scotland, regardless of the Longannet shutdown, is or soon will be a massive over-producer of electricity.
Is there any reason why Scotland should not still supply electricity to England? Any ideas what would happen to the huge surplus produced otherwise?
or whisky?

NS said there wouldn't be another referendum until the Scottish people decide.
Is she proposing a referendum on whether or not to hold another independence referendum?

How long have you lived in Scotland paddyann?

Adding to what Ankers posted:

The Netherlands had 2,200 wind turbines a year ago which is enough to fuel 2.4 million households (the same number of households as the total in Scotland).
[[http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/01/on-target-the-netherlands-now-has-2200-wind-turbines/}}

I'm not sure how one turbine can fuel one city.

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/

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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".