Majority for Independence

[Rootsie]

As we all know public opinion can vary hugely at certain times. For example if there had been a general election directly after the expenses scandal then (judging by the polls) Labour would have lost by a much larger amount than they would if there were an election tomorrow. It is my worry that just before any independence referendum one of the "sides" could release some news story or suchlike that would in the short term have a huge affect on public opinion (say another expenses scandal at Westminster or maybe some "dirt" on Salmond).

In addition, if there were a referendum on independence that passed by say 51% - 49% (only about 80,000 votes if all eligible adults did turn out) then is that a big enough majority? Would having to get 60% of the vote be more reasonable or, drastic as it may appear, should there be a minimum valid turnout (i.e. not counted as a valid referendum if less than 60% or 50% of voters turn out)?

I realise that due to my unionist views this could be seen as just me trying to make things hard for nationalists, but it is really a genuine question and I have tried to write it with as little bias as possible and would like informed opinion on the matter from people on both sides of the debate.

Oh and Austin, please don’t reply to this until you have replied in full to my post on the EU thread. I find the way that you ignore questions you don’t want to answer due to the fact that you cannot provide a convincing or valid counter-argument rather rude.

[Mockler]

Well assuming that a referendum needs to be held on this subject - I would probably agree with your 60% thing just because I think 51% is too much of a weak mandate.

My mind could change though, I suspect.

[Jamest]

60% or 70% would be a good a good idea

[Mockler]

60% or 70% would be a good a good idea

70% is a bit far dont you think?

[morton700]

We are assuming that Salmond's referendum bill gets passed (which would be surprising atm) ...

I think two thirds should be the minimum as it gives a real mandate for change.

[Rootsie]

We are assuming that Salmond's referendum bill gets passed (which would be surprising atm) ...

I think two thirds should be the minimum as it gives a real mandate for change.
Oh I don't think it will pass either, but this is just generally wondering what people think if the situation were to arise.

[Dirk/DSF]

Well assuming that a referendum needs to be held on this subject - I would probably agree with your 60% thing just because I think 51% is too much of a weak mandate.

My mind could change though, I suspect.

60% is a huge amount more than 51%!

[morton700]

Oh I don't think it will pass either, but this is just generally wondering what people think if the situation were to arise.

You would have thought that Salmond would realise that it will fail and stop the independence movement for a number of years increasing the time it would take for Scotland to become independent.

[Mockler]

60% is a huge amount more than 51%!

I was just thinking that too. Perhaps something like 54% would be better?

[Jamest]

70% is a bit far dont you think?
Probably yes, but it would have to be a decent majority for such a big change.

[James2200]

South Africa passed out of the Empire with a 52% in favour. I would agree to say, over 57-8%. However 60, and 70, would be quite a bit too far. We must remember the drastic changed which will happen and I agree 1% is not enough for it.

[Jamest]

South Africa passed out of the Empire with a 52% in favour. I would agree to say, over 57-8%. However 60, and 70, would be quite a bit too far. We must remember the drastic changed which will happen and I agree 1% is not enough for it.
What about a series of 3 or 4 referendums? Then they will be able to see if support for independence is continuous?

[Mockler]

What about a series of 3 or 4 referendums? Then they will be able to see if support for independence is continuous?

Over a number of years?

[France-22]

It's a good idea, but it is the citizans duty to vote and if he doesn't it's his fault. But there ought to be an option on the ballot to choose no opinion or something similar and if this is the bigest option there a re vote.

[Darryl'Libertarian'Jones]

Can my house have an independence referendum aswell?

P.s. This is my 2000th post. I am now a local celebrity :)

[:Vampiress:]

As we all know public opinion can vary hugely at certain times. For example if there had been a general election directly after the expenses scandal then (judging by the polls) Labour would have lost by a much larger amount than they would if there were an election tomorrow. It is my worry that just before any independence referendum one of the "sides" could release some news story or suchlike that would in the short term have a huge affect on public opinion (say another expenses scandal at Westminster or maybe some "dirt" on Salmond).

In addition, if there were a referendum on independence that passed by say 51% - 49% (only about 80,000 votes if all eligible adults did turn out) then is that a big enough majority? Would having to get 60% of the vote be more reasonable or, drastic as it may appear, should there be a minimum valid turnout (i.e. not counted as a valid referendum if less than 60% or 50% of voters turn out)?

I realise that due to my unionist views this could be seen as just me trying to make things hard for nationalists, but it is really a genuine question and I have tried to write it with as little bias as possible and would like informed opinion on the matter from people on both sides of the debate.

Oh and Austin, please don’t reply to this until you have replied in full to my post on the EU thread. I find the way that you ignore questions you don’t want to answer due to the fact that you cannot provide a convincing or valid counter-argument rather rude.

Is that under the assumption that only Scots would be voting on the independence issue?

Because Scottish independence is a nation wide issue and everyone should get to vote.

[Liam Hannan]

Is that under the assumption that only Scots would be voting on the independence issue?

Because Scottish independence is a nation wide issue and everyone should get to vote.

Yes. Everyone in the scottish nation, which is one of the two contracting parties agreeing to a merger, and the one with the strongest expressed wish for a review. Should England & Wales decide to conduct a referendum as to whether to cede they are likewise entitled to do so and would have to do so as an England & Wales referendum because the documents refere to two distinct entities and constitutional law regards two sources of sovereignty for the contracting nations.

[:Vampiress:]

Yes. Everyone in the scottish nation, which is one of the two contracting parties agreeing to a merger, and the one with the strongest expressed wish for a review. Should England & Wales decide to conduct a referendum as to whether to cede they are likewise entitled to do so and would have to do so as an England & Wales referendum because the documents refere to two distinct entities and constitutional law regards two sources of sovereignty for the contracting nations.

Your missing my point, the referendum should be nation wide, not conducted separately as Scotland is still in the union and independence is a national issue, because it will have national repercussions.
Which two documents?
The aim may be for two distinct entities and with devolution its heading there but we are still very much a single entity, a internally divided, but nether-less one.

[Liam Hannan]

Your missing my point, the referendum should be nation wide, not conducted separately as Scotland is still in the union and independence is a national issue, because it will have national repercussions.
Which two documents?
The aim may be for two distinct entities and with devolution its heading there but we are still very much a single entity, a internally divided, but nether-less one.

1706 & 1707 acts of union.

And we are not a single entity we are a conjoined entity under unitary governance, which is a different thing entirely.

If we were a single entity, we would be a "Nation-state", and, despite nearly three years of attempting to, no unionist has been able to present a reputeable case for this being the state of affairs.
(Although the more intelligent ones have delivered convincing benefits for the continuation of the multi-national UK state)

[Dirk/DSF]

If a slave wanted their independence, would you demand their master also want it, before giving it them?

[Andrew Deans]

You aren't seriously suggesting that if the people of England want Scottish Independence we should be forced into it? That's a ridiculous notion!

[:Vampiress:]

1706 & 1707 acts of union.

And we are not a single entity we are a conjoined entity under unitary governance, which is a different thing entirely.

If we were a single entity, we would be a "Nation-state", and, despite nearly three years of attempting to, no unionist has been able to present a reputeable case for this being the state of affairs.
(Although the more intelligent ones have delivered convincing benefits for the continuation of the multi-national UK state)

Your just ***** footing around the word;

con·join (kn-join)
tr. & intr.v. con·joined, con·join·ing, con·joins
To join or become joined together; unite.

Either way you choose to look at it, we are inevitably conjoined (for the present at least).

I am not suggesting that we are nation-state, which is why you would notice I added; "a internally divided, but nether-less one."

I am not arguing for the union to continue, I am arguing that when Scottish independence is being decided, it is arrogant to assume that it is a Scottish issue as opposed to a national issue.

[Liam Hannan]

Your just ***** footing around the word;

con·join (kn-join)
tr. & intr.v. con·joined, con·join·ing, con·joins
To join or become joined together; unite.

Either way you choose to look at it, we are inevitably conjoined (for the present at least).

I am not suggesting that we are nation-state, which is why you would notice I added; "a internally divided, but nether-less one."

I am not arguing for the union to continue, I am arguing that when Scottish independence is being decided, it is arrogant to assume that it is a Scottish issue as opposed to a national issue.

It is that process which effects the decision now. Because it was the amalgam of two entities, not one, and that is still recognised in constitutional law it would be contrary to legal principle to suggest a UK wide referendum unless one was demanded by both countries jointly.

It is furthermore in contravention of the precedents following the treaty of Vienna, which would allow for the area wishing to cede to have the ultimate say - not any and all effected areas.

Lastly, it is a ludicrous moral position that can only be justified through the idea of shared nationality - an idea which you have already rejected.

[:Vampiress:]

If a slave wanted their independence, would you demand their master also want it, before giving it them?

You are not seriously suggesting that is in any way comparable with what's being discuss now.

[:Vampiress:]

It is that process which effects the decision now. Because it was the amalgam of two entities, not one, and that is still recognised in constitutional law it would be contrary to legal principle to suggest a UK wide referendum unless one was demanded by both countries jointly.

It is furthermore in contravention of the precedents following the treaty of Vienna, which would allow for the area wishing to cede to have the ultimate say - not any and all effected areas.

Lastly, it is a ludicrous moral position that can only be justified through the idea of shared nationality - an idea which you have already rejected.

Which is what I am suggesting, that Westminster call the referendum.

Which treaty of Vienna, there were 10.

It is a ludicrous moral position to claim that the disbandment of a union should be placed solely on one area of the nation.

I have rejected the idea we are a nation state, that is far from denying shared nationality.

[Liam Hannan]

Which is what I am suggesting, that Westminster call the referendum.

Which treaty of Vienna, there were 10.

I'll dig through the computer and email you. I have it somewhere.


It is a ludicrous moral position to claim that the disbandment of a union should be placed solely on one area of the nation.

Tell that to the UN, who have the right of a people to choose their form of government in the charter.


I have rejected the idea we are a nation state, that is far from denying shared nationality.

Do expand. I could use the lulz.

[Dirk/DSF]

You are not seriously suggesting that is in any way comparable with what's being discuss now.

I was suggesting an extreme example of self-determination.

[:Vampiress:]

I was suggesting an extreme example of self-determination.

Of course the slave shouldn't wait, but as history shows its usually when the master agree's that independence is won.
However the reason for this example eludes me.

[:Vampiress:]

I'll dig through the computer and email you. I have it somewhere.

Tell that to the UN, who have the right of a people to choose their form of government in the charter.

Do expand. I could use the lulz.

I wouldn't waste my breath with that.
So your assuming that the rest of the union have no right to choose their form of government? Because that is essentially what they would be deciding as the existing form would have the change drastically to accommodate Scottish Independence.

A nation state is essentially a country in which a nation of principally the same type of people exists, organized by either race or cultural background. In the nation-state, generally, everyone would speak the same language, probably practice the same or similar types of religion, and share a set of cultural values. Which I reject.
We do however have a shared nationality as we are all citizens of Britain and whilst having shared aspects of culture we are hardly a nation state.

Three guys were on a trip to Saudi Arabia. One day, they stumbled into a harem tent filled with over 100 beautiful women. They started getting freaky with all the women, when suddenly the sheik came in.

"I am the master of all these women. No one else can touch them except me. You three men must pay for what you have done today. You will be punished in a way corresponding to your profession."


The sheik turned to the first man and asked him what he did for a living.

"I'm a cop," said the first man.

"Then we will shoot your dick off!" said the sheik. He then turned to the second man and asked him what he did for a living.

"I'm a firemen," said the second man.

"Then we will burn your dick off!" said the sheik.

Finally, he asked the last man, "And you, what do you do for a living?"

The third man answered, with a sly grin, "I'm a lollipop salesman!"

^
For the lulz

[Liam Hannan]

I wouldn't waste my breath with that.
So your assuming that the rest of the union have no right to choose their form of government? Because that is essentially what they would be deciding as the existing form would have the change drastically to accommodate Scottish Independence.

A nation state is essentially a country in which a nation of principally the same type of people exists, organized by either race or cultural background. In the nation-state, generally, everyone would speak the same language, probably practice the same or similar types of religion, and share a set of cultural values. Which I reject.
We do however have a shared nationality as we are all citizens of Britain and whilst having shared aspects of culture we are hardly a nation state.


What you are referring to is ethnic nationalism; which is not popular in Scotland. You appear to ignore the concept of civic nationalism entirely.

And yes, we are all British Citizens, that, however, is not a shared nationality. It is part of a shared political structure, and political culture is one of the things that may define nationality, but do not necessitate nationalistic connexion.

[Mossad]

What you are referring to is ethnic nationalism; which is not popular in Scotland. You appear to ignore the concept of civic nationalism entirely.

And yes, we are all British Citizens, that, however, is not a shared nationality. It is part of a shared political structure, and political culture is one of the things that may define nationality, but do not necessitate nationalistic connexion.

You have a habit of using a lot of big words to say very little.

[Liam Hannan]

You have a habit of using a lot of big words to say very little.

That's because I have to find a thousand different ways of expressing the same message to some very obstinate people.

[Austin Sheridan]

That's because I have to find a thousand different ways of expressing the same message to some very obstinate people.

It all gets a bit repetitive doesn't it.

[Liam Hannan]

It does.

And, just so I cannot be accused of being inflexible, here is the same message in small words.

"Scottish, not British"

And in medium words

"Britain is a country, not a Nation"

[Rootsie]

It does.

And, just so I cannot be accused of being inflexible, here is the same message in small words.

"Scottish, not British"

And in medium words

"Britain is a country, not a Nation"
May I ask what your view on this issue is? Should there have to be a bigger majority or not (assuming it were a Scotland-only vote)?

[Liam Hannan]

May I ask what your view on this issue is? Should there have to be a bigger majority or not (assuming it were a Scotland-only vote)?

Personally I'm undecided as yet.

I am absolutely against a "% of the total electorate" condition, which is outright unfair.

I wouldn't support any motion which required a minimum of over 55%.

But between 50-55% I'm actually being flexible. Whilst I may maintain certain stances about the right of nations and the role of the state this decision would be one that shapes the future of a lot of people and may have implications that I've not considered - so it probably would qualify for "extraordinary circumstances" and require a slightly larger majority.

(and the arguments I have which refute that are about media bias and come from a campaign rather than a political science perspective - so I figure they shouldn't influence this particular stance)

[Hamsterwaffle]

"Britain is a country, not a Nation"
Depends upon the definition of a nation, because between myself, David Trimble and Glasgow fans, a British nation seems to exist. The term "A nation of nations" seems rather fitting.

[Austin Sheridan]

I would pass it with 50% +1 of the vote for independence to come about.

[Dirk/DSF]

Hmm. Thought experiment. What if I said we vote whether or not we stay in the union.

E.g.

Should Scotland remain a partner in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Yes, Scotland should be a part of the UK.

No, Scotland should not be part of the UK.

And then I claim that 55% of the vote is required for a "yes", if we are to remain in the Union...?

[PoliceStory]

I'll dig through the computer and email you. I have it somewhere.



Tell that to the UN, who have the right of a people to choose their form of government in the charter.



Do expand. I could use the lulz.

Firstly, people attend to define nations in relation to identity. They are a group of people who identify together as a nation. Yet this is circular logic. Nations define themselves in terms of national identity, which defines itself in terms of being an identity pertaining to a nation.

As far as I can see, there is no objective difference between national and non-national identities: one's loyalty to, say, a US State, a city, or even simply a regional area can be just as strong and multi-faceted (sometimes more so) than any identification with a 'nation'.

As such, I declare the idea of nations to be bunk.

[Rootsie]

Hmm. Thought experiment. What if I said we vote whether or not we stay in the union.

E.g.

Should Scotland remain a partner in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Yes, Scotland should be a part of the UK.

No, Scotland should not be part of the UK.

And then I claim that 55% of the vote is required for a "yes", if we are to remain in the Union...?
You could do that, but it makes less sense than,
"Yes, Scotland should leave the UK"
or
"No, Scotland should not leave the UK"

[Sappmer]

It is all dependent on the way the question is asked. Questions like "Should Scotland remain part of the UK" tends to have a more positive effect on people so they vote yes. While "Should Scotland leave the UK" tends to have a negative effect and people vote yes.
Either that or people are just damn lazy and vote yes for everything.

[Liam Hannan]

You could do that, but it makes less sense than,
"Yes, Scotland should leave the UK"
or
"No, Scotland should not leave the UK"

I don't see why - to my mind it makes an equal amount of sense.

[SaveTheUK]

I'm kinda torn, I'm a unionist so naturally I wouldn't want a referendum, but it's undemocratic to deny a referendum.

If there is a referendum then a majority of 1 or more votes should grant independence/non independence.

But no one really gives a jot about my opinion, I'm only 15.

[kylet15]

But no one really gives a jot about my opinion, I'm only 15.

SSH!! Young people can have perfectly valid opinions!

[France-22]

Nor maly I would go for 50.1%. But for something this important, 60 to 75%

[Austin Sheridan]

Nor maly I would go for 50.1%. But for something this important, 60 to 75%

Why? because it might fall on the side you don't agree on?

Or would the same rule be in place for the NO vote? would we have to keep having referendums until one side eventually reaches 60%?

[The Modder]

Presumably, yes.

[Rootsie]

Why? because it might fall on the side you don't agree on?

Or would the same rule be in place for the NO vote? would we have to keep having referendums until one side eventually reaches 60%?
Yes.

10% is equal to about 20-25,000 people. A pretty tiny margin.

[Austin Sheridan]

Yes.

10% is equal to about 20-25,000 people. A pretty tiny margin.

it should be 50% + 1 of the votes casted that is the decision maker.

[Rootsie]

it should be 50% + 1 of the votes casted that is the decision maker.
+1? What do you mean?

[Austin Sheridan]

+1? What do you mean?

Just means over 50%. 50%+1 is a technical term. :)

[Rootsie]

Just means over 50%. 50%+1 is a technical term. :)
Yeh. Cheers for explaining. +rep

[Austin Sheridan]

Yeh. Cheers for explaining. +rep

No problem. :)

[TopHat]

Thing is, once Scotland leaves, it would be incredibly difficult to go back if for some reason they decide they don't like being independent. For an issue as serious as this, a supermajority of 66%+1 of the total electorate seems much more fitting - there's much less chance of donkey votes or ill-informed votes possibly causing long term damage.

[SaveTheUK]

You know what Austin, I don't like what you stand for and what not, but I agree 50% + 1 should be all that's needed.

[Austin Sheridan]

You know what Austin, I don't like what you stand for and what not, but I agree 50% + 1 should be all that's needed.

I am glad you are reasonable. Again, welcome to the forums. :)

[SaveTheUK]

I am glad you are reasonable. Again, welcome to the forums. :)

Thanks for the welcoming, it's nothing personal I just don't like the idea of Scotland being an independent country, you seem like a stand up guy and possibly SNP leader of the future, I just don't like your party allegiance.

[Austin Sheridan]

Thanks for the welcoming, it's nothing personal I just don't like the idea of Scotland being an independent country, you seem like a stand up guy and possibly SNP leader of the future, I just don't like your party allegiance.

It's fair enough that you don't like my party political affiliation. I can live with that hehe. :)

[Simon Lock]

The Scottish People should be able to decide their own destinies. It is unfair to ask for more than a majority,and 50%+1 should be the amount needed.

Also, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should not have a say on this. If Scotland wishes to be independent, then it is not for us to deny it.