"
@TheScotsman: New to our #indyref site via @independent, experts on defence, foreign affairs & more on impact of a 'Yes' vote: http://t.co/pBX9YNZrQb
"
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 10 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
My preferred quote from the SPF release:
"It was inevitable that the closer we came to the 18th of September passions would increase but that does not justify the exaggerated rhetoric that is being deployed with increased frequency. Any neutral observer could be led to believe Scotland is on the verge of societal disintegration yet nothing could be further from the truth."
Posted 9 years ago # -
So what should you do if you don't know? You shouldn't vote No and you shouldn't not vote. So that leaves... wait a minute!
Maybe the answer is - make your b**** mind up!?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"So what should you do if you don't know?"
Perhaps -
"
There are still almost 36 hours left before the deadline by which Scots must cast their vote. That’s plenty of time to get informed. We’ve laid out our case in the Wee Blue Book, which takes roughly an hour to read. It’s available in print and digital formats, in Gaelic, as an audiobook, and as a narrated video on YouTube.
And because we’re fair-minded, we’ve collated the No case for you too.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/dont-vote-in-ignorance/#more-61829
Posted 9 years ago # -
If you don't know, vote No,
Surely if you don't know you shouldn't vote?
"Don't get in the no, get in the know"? Labour (and the Unions) should be falling overthemselves to get people who don't know educated and clued up so they have the facts to make a reasoned decision for No. Instead they're insulting the intelligence of their members and the public by writing out to them, telling undecideds to just not bother finding out and just vote no without really understanding why.
We could have been doing so much more good re climate change, poverty, Gaza, transport policy, if we hadn't been spending so much time with this
Government has still gone on regardless of the referendum, it's only in the last few months if not weeks that energies have seriously been diverted into it. But still the state functions.
The basic arguments from each side are (for No) - that it's possible to deal with the internal issues you outline in the current system or (for Yes) - we need a significant political restructuring/rebalance of power in order to begin to properly tackle our internal problems and that there is currently no power or mandate to tackle the external.
Westminster would still be wringing it's hands about Gaza regardless of the referendum taking place.
I don't believe in many of the SNP's policies, (especially transport (aka roads) policy), and although I'm a Yes voter, let's be clear I'm not an SNP voter and the referendum isn't a vote for the SNP. Just like it's perfectly possible that No voters will vote SNP future.
Even in its heartlands, the SNP rarely polls above 50%, and in many parts of the country it rarely polls over 25%. I do not foresee a future SNP hegemony and I think once a first-past-the-post system is thrown where it belongs (in the bin) and the national general election of Scotland is undertaken by PR you will get a much more representative and diverse chamber.
If Yes wins and that doesn't work out as well as Salmond/Sheridan/Soutar/??? hope, it won't be nearly so easy to change back.
It's not a vote for or agaisnt them, they will exist and have political influence either way. If the SNP / Salmond p****s off the electorate, they'll be voted out, just like any other party finds to its cost when they lose the public confidence. It will be far more easier to get rid of an unpopular government in Scotland if the national mood doesn't also have to reflect that of England. By which I mean, if there's a No vote and if Boris and Farage get into Westminster and if it starts dancing to their tune, there will be very little that can be done about it from Scotland alone; it would require a UK-wide voter concensus
Bars including the Phoenix on Broughton Street and Kilderkin, close to the Scottish Parliament on Canongate, have secured 4am licences. “We are expecting a lot of tired and thirsty customers,” one barman was reported as sayingBy which they mean Journos, Hacks and Politicos?
If it stays as is (with the current veto mechanism), then Scotland would never have the same global voice as the UK.
The UK's global voice is (in my opinion) amplified by it's past imperial and military heritage, ambitions in Westminster still to act like a global policeman, it's current member of the "we've got the bomb" club, high (but falling) military spending and of course its particlar intertwinedness with the global financial system. An independent Scotland's voice on the global stage will, as you say, quite probably be quieter, but I think more reasoned as it is not backed up by the gun and the bomb. It's perfectly possible for a small, non-militaristic nation to have a respected and audible voice on the global stage (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands?)
Posted 9 years ago # -
There was another uni-era-acquaintance-on-Facebook stating their undecidedness yesterday evening, which was met with the usual spread of comments from people with and without votes, the normal mix of conflations of voting-intention and party-affinity and the expected references to recent widely-circulated voting-intention blogposts. I just that what their vote would be answering is a simple question on the ballot paper which is there as a result of the reasonably simple (as far as government documents go) Edinburgh Agreement, not the massed opinions and arguments and speculation from the campaigns. No idea if it helped or not.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Wholeheartedly agree that respect does not come hand in hand with volume, but you couldn't suggest that Norway has the same impact as the UK (though they've got some excellent little subs that caused great embarrassment to the US a few years ago).
But then I don't think that the UK has a particularly good track record on its global choices. So do you stay and try and change what the loudmouth is saying, or go and try and lead by example from outside?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"So do you stay and try and change what the loudmouth is saying,"
Well that seems to be one of the No arguments - often articulated by people who have already been at Westminster for a while...
"or go and try and lead by example from outside?"
Or try to do what seems to be right for a new small country (having looked at a few others and near neighbours). If anyone else notices and is 'inspired' that's a bonus.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"There are still almost 36 hours left before the deadline by which Scots must cast their vote. That’s plenty of time to get informed. We’ve laid out our case in the Wee Blue Book"
Critique of the Wee Blue Book:
http://chokkablog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-wee-blue-book-of-lies.html
(Or more acurately, a critique of "The Economy" section.)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Interestingly, after posting my blog last night, I got a slightly agonised email from a friend in London saying she'd be sad if Scotland left. Are we being lovebombed?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm not. Clearly you're more wanted by those below the border :p
Posted 9 years ago # -
Folks I talked to down south last week were just very, very cross that I had a vote and they didn't even though their grandma was Scottish, etc
Posted 9 years ago # -
"she'd be sad if Scotland left"
Why?
The fantasy 'drift off into space' notion or the 'we need your votes to help get rid of the present Gov' (which isn't even true ahead of next year's GE), or 'we need to stand together to get reform'???
Posted 9 years ago # -
One of my grannies was Scottish. Just to be on the safe side I've lived here more than half my life, too.
Posted 9 years ago # -
she'd be sad if Scotland left
Are we going somewhere? I thnk even the most die-hard nationalists still expect us to be in exactly the same place.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I thnk even the most die-hard nationalists still expect us to be in exactly the same place."
Or maybe some miles or kilometres up in the clouds??
Posted 9 years ago # -
I love the idea of special branch officers hidden in the back of the vans that transport the ballot boxes to the count frantically rubbing out "yes" votes and crossing "no" instead.
Yes, I find this specific fear bizarre. Are the boxes continually observed between polling station and counting by both sides?
If not the simplest thing to do would be to substitute the ballot boxes or at least the ballot papers wholesale whilst en-route to the counting. It's so close that only a fraction of the papers need to be changed.
On balance I think it's a bit of a stretch, but still. We've not been above killing indiscriminately in the past to preserve the trappings of empire, swapping wee bits of paper should be child's play.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
the complicated case involving the tampered ballot box"
http://fix.com/whats-alan-watching/season-finale-review-the-good-wife-whats-in-the-box-ballot-stuff
But that's just fiction from the land of the free.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Or maybe some miles or kilometres up in the clouds??
In an independent Scotland, the coulds will still come down to us ;)Posted 9 years ago # -
in my experience* the most common threat is actually tellers who can't count. i have seen too many cases of this.
the most effective strategy is just not to let people on the register at all. i am hopeful that that is not a problem here.
*I do actually have professional competence in this area
Posted 9 years ago # -
"*I do actually have professional competence in this area"
Poor counting or ballot stuffing?
(Joke)
Posted 9 years ago # -
I've been a candidate or candidate's agent in two countries and a recognized election observer in a third.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ho ho
Martha Kearney on World at One vox popped a 'cyclist arriving at work'. Very recognisable voice - not the cycling officer (but close).
Posted 9 years ago # -
and what did (s)he say?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I haven't bothered to write much on this topic, perhaps because I haven't yet decided for sure how I'm going to vote.
I will say this: in my opinion the no vote is a crushingly negative thing, and I almost feel embarrassed for the people who can contemplate sticking with an increasingly broken Britain, where every trend is in the wrong direction. Just looking at what's happened since the last generation got to vote on this should be enough to reduce us to tears.
However, negative is at least safe in the sense that the country is quite predictably broken. Out of the EU, privatisation of the NHS, you can at least bank on these things coming with a bit of notice. It's nice and sentimental to be pro-union too.
I might vote no, but I'm not sure I will live easily with myself if I do.
Posted 9 years ago # -
kaputnik's made a pretty good case above for the unpredictable nature of the status quo as well
ps Dave, have you read this? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29219837
Posted 9 years ago # -
For me it just feels like it is not the right time. If it is Yes, it will (probably) be so marginal that dragging almost half the electorate kicking and screaming in a direction it doesn't want just doesn't seem right.
A move to independance should be on a tide of enthusiasm across across the board. Well that would be far preferable anyway.I'm sure some may try to argue the converse of this (i.e. Yes supporters being dragged kickiing and screaming into a continuation of the union, but that doesn't work for me).
Maybe if it is yes, the No support will get over their angst soon enough, so maybe it won't matter.
But ultimately, no matter what the multitude of arguments for and against, it doesn't feel like the right time.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Private Aye (as it's rebranded itself this week) is apparently running an article exposing Alan Cochrane (pro-union editor of the Telegraph) as being on a £20,000 bonus if there's a 60-40 No win and £10,000 for a No win below that. I don't expect the "free" press to be impartial. But really... I suppose if you read what Alan Cochrane has to say without a massive pinch of salt then you were always voting No anyway.
Whatever the result of the referendum, it's worth bearing in mind that the Yes vote been achieved with the support of one, established weekly paper (Sunday Herald) with every other print or broadcast media having varying degrees of pro-status quo / union from the pretend-impartial to the soft-no to the downright screaming histeria of the usual suspects. Perhaps that national tsunami of enthusiasm (there's certainly a tide, maybe towards a neap and not a spring, but definitely a tide) might have been more evident in a more balanced media environment. "We" (the internet / social media using generation) might find it easy and normal practice to get our news and journalistic analysis from anywhere other than the BBC, ITV and the papers, but for many people (particularly the older generation) there is no alternative.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@cb
So much of that could be turned round (replacing No for Yes etc).
There was a brilliant Youtube piece a month or so back which you had to watch start to end - it scrolled and when read top to bottom, it was a reasonable case for No.
However it then reversed and when read bottom to top, it was a coherent case for Yes.
One thing this whole debate has shown is the creative and varied ways that campaigns can be brought to the people.
......and its no surprise that I think the most creative and telling has been the Yes campaign !
Posted 9 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
