Britain, Scotland Sign Deal For Independence Referendum

[theblether]

@nontabury.......how was that a smokescreen?.....it was a fair attempt at answering your question.

@MAJIC.............fabulous avatar, make me feel proud to be British.

And good to see he has an Avatar now. Hopefully all other non avatar members will follow

Oh S***! I might have to take it off in 2014.

With a bit of luck yes, but you can replace it with the Northern Irish flag, so it will still look smart.

[MAJIC]

@nontabury.......how was that a smokescreen?.....it was a fair attempt at answering your question.

@MAJIC.............fabulous avatar, make me feel proud to be British.

And good to see he has an Avatar now. Hopefully all other non avatar members will follow

Oh S***! I might have to take it off in 2014.

With a bit of luck yes, but you can replace it with the Northern Irish flag, so it will still look smart.

In the event of it being necessary,to remove, it will be replaced with the Flag of St George.

[smokie36]

Embra was awash with poppy sellers today....my cousin is off to Afghanistan for Xmas....while we are all very proud of him it is a worry for all of us.

Yes...he is Scottish by birth and happily serving in an English regiment. I can't see those ties disappearing overnight.

[nontabury]

@nontabury.......how was that a smokescreen?.....it was a fair attempt at answering your question.

@MAJIC.............fabulous avatar, make me feel proud to be British.

And good to see he has an Avatar now. Hopefully all other non avatar members will follow

Will try to find out how to post a Avatar,have been to busy replying to a load of BS

Do you want me to tell you how to do it? The Scottish education system is fabulous you know.

Click your name top right, click profile, top right again click edit profile, click add image, add an image from your photo file, then save.

Now remember no rude photos or anything liable to cause offence such as goals that never were in 1966.

Thanks Mate,I use an IPAD,which doesn't seem to have that option,just looked on a laptop

And found the place,problem is two days ago somebody acquired my E- mail address, resulting in hotmail blocking my a/c,now trying to get them to re-open it.

I agree the Scottish education system is very good,as it should be,with all the English tax payers money subsidising it, just a pity it doesn't teach some people to view things without blinkered,rose coloured glasses.

What chance of Scotland being involved in a disputed goal in the world cup?that said, congratulations to Glasgow Celtic for their fantastic win against Barcelona,it just shows what can be achieved when the British stick together.manager a Ulsterman,man of the match a English goalkeeper.

Edited November 10, 2012 by nontabury

[nontabury]

Embra was awash with poppy sellers today....my cousin is off to Afghanistan for Xmas....while we are all very proud of him it is a worry for all of us.

Yes...he is Scottish by birth and happily serving in an English regiment. I can't see those ties disappearing overnight.

Let's hope, and if your religious,pray that he comes home safe.

[7by7]

Indeed, and at this time of year let's remember all those who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces of the UK.

Especially those who have suffered injury or disablement and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

[7by7]

@ MAJIC

Thanks for the link. Hilarious! I almost felt sorry for Andrew Neil. He must have felt so dizzy watching oor Wee Eck run rings round him.

Salmond was indeed going round and round in circles; so much so I'm surprised he didn't disappear up........... .

Political genius? Political nincompoop.

Even when he's been caught in a lie he can't come up with a decent excuse!

Alex Salmond blames BBC journalist Andrew Neil for EU 'lies'

In it Salmond is asked: “Have you sought legal advice on this matter?”

He responds: “Yes, in terms of the debate.”

Challenged yesterday on how this was accurate in light of the other revelations, he explained: “Because I was about to say ‘in terms of the debate and the documents which we have produced’ but Andrew Neil interrupted me.”

Another lie, or an admission that he cannot handle interviews?

Has the man no political nous at all? Any politician worth his salt wouldn't have let an interviewer get away with interrupting an answer; a real politician would have carried on and said what he wanted to say!.

I now expect to be told that the Daily Record is either pro Unionist or pro Labour or both and so, even though this is a direct quote from Salmond, it is to be ignored

[theblether]

@ MAJIC

Thanks for the link. Hilarious! I almost felt sorry for Andrew Neil. He must have felt so dizzy watching oor Wee Eck run rings round him.

Salmond was indeed going round and round in circles; so much so I'm surprised he didn't disappear up........... .

Political genius? Political nincompoop.

Even when he's been caught in a lie he can't come up with a decent excuse!

Alex Salmond blames BBC journalist Andrew Neil for EU 'lies'

In it Salmond is asked: “Have you sought legal advice on this matter?”

He responds: “Yes, in terms of the debate.”

Challenged yesterday on how this was accurate in light of the other revelations, he explained: “Because I was about to say ‘in terms of the debate and the documents which we have produced’ but Andrew Neil interrupted me.”

Another lie, or an admission that he cannot handle interviews?

Has the man no political nous at all? Any politician worth his salt wouldn't have let an interviewer get away with interrupting an answer; a real politician would have carried on and said what he wanted to say!.

I now expect to be told that the Daily Record is either pro Unionist or pro Labour or both and so, even though this is a direct quote from Salmond, it is to be ignored

Yes the Daily Record is pro-Unionist and Pro-Labour. It has been for evermore, it's owned by Trinity Mirror group, publisher of the Daily Mirror. It's a left wing rag.

[smokie36]

To me its nitpicking of the first order.

Tell me what happened in 1979 7by7....why did that vote end as it did?

[theblether]

To me its nitpicking of the first order.

Tell me what happened in 1979 7by7....why did that vote end as it did?

I don't think you'll get much of an answer to that point, unless Google is involved. The problem with Google is it only gives a very narrow view.

I remember getting a day off school that day, I'm pretty sure it was a Thursday, and I remember walking past my primary school in my home village, where SNP activists were handing out stickers and the like. I was already a Nationalist by then and even at a young age I was boiling with rage at the assault on our democracy perpetrated by the British Labour Party.

It was a disgrace.

[7by7]

I now expect to be told that the Daily Record is either pro Unionist or pro Labour or both and so, even though this is a direct quote from Salmond, it is to be ignored

Yes the Daily Record is pro-Unionist and Pro-Labour. It has been for evermore, it's owned by Trinity Mirror group, publisher of the Daily Mirror. It's a left wing rag.

So are you saying that even though presented as direct quotes from Salmond, he didn't actually say it?

Tell me what happened in 1979 7by7....why did that vote end as it did?

Why so many Scots couldn't be bothered to vote; only a Scot can tell you. Maybe they just didn't think it was important enough?

If a such an important referendum was being held in England I'd certainly have cast my vote; as I did in the 1974 EEC referendum.

Let's hope that this time the Scottish people can be bothered to go out and vote, so that the democratic decision is made; whatever they decide

.

[theblether]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

[smokie36]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

As a young laddie then theblether I am interested to know the opinions of yourself and other Scots as to what was happening at the time.

I can say I questioned my parents on this issue a long while ago....perhaps in '88 or '89 and both admitted not having voted.

They were sheepish i will admit....and while my father was working my mother simply said she was busy looking after the children.

Both valid answers but they don't really capture the mood of the time. Clearly there was something wrong in the run up to the vote.

Surely there was a campaign by all sides to make sure each and every person voted?

If there wasn't then why not??

Over to you....

[theblether]

The vote was unwinnable......George Cunningham introduced the 40% rule ( 40% of the electorate had to vote yes ) and he knew that was virtually unachievable.

The highest post war vote in Scotland was around 81% in 1951, that tells you that even at best, 19% of the electorate are disengaged. In the previous elections the turnout hovered around the mid 70's, so let's take an average of 75%.

To take an average of 75% and then create a 40% figure of the electorate to cross the artificial line, it would have required a 54% majority Yes vote from the electorate that would normally be expected to vote.

The opinion polls weren't giving that type of lead for the Devolutionists............now the introduction of the rule had two effects, it confirmed to many that a no show = effectively a No vote, the first time in UK election history when there was an incentive NOT TO VOTE, ( shameful on so many levels ), and it also disengaged a lot of people who knew the vote was rigged and wouldn't validate it by showing up, in effect a low level boycott.

That was the second time in the 70's that a Referendum was boycotted incidentally, 7x7 will remember the first one.

So we had a rigged election, with a built in disincentive to vote. If it had been a straight and fair fight then the turnout would have been a lot higher, up to the 75% plus mark, and bizarrely, I believe that it would have resulted in a No vote.

I believe that the No Shows were people who were against Devolution, and I believe that the majority of Devolutionists actually voted, ( not all though as I mentioned ).

It was another example of Labour being too smart for itself, it created a lot of resentment by introducing the 40% rule, and it wasn't necessary, as they would most likely have won anyway.

If they had won a straight fight it would most likely have killed Devolution off for years......if not forever.

I hope all that makes sense to you?

Edited November 10, 2012 by theblether

[7by7]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

So, apart from apathy, why was the turnout so low?

I would like to point out that I posted this before the above post was edited from a request to wait 5 mionutes to become as it is now.

Edited November 10, 2012 by 7by7

[Rob8891]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

As a young laddie then theblether I am interested to know the opinions of yourself and other Scots as to what was happening at the time.

I can say I questioned my parents on this issue a long while ago....perhaps in '88 or '89 and both admitted not having voted.

They were sheepish i will admit....and while my father was working my mother simply said she was busy looking after the children.

Both valid answers but they don't really capture the mood of the time. Clearly there was something wrong in the run up to the vote.

Surely there was a campaign by all sides to make sure each and every person voted?

If there wasn't then why not??

Over to you....

In those days, I was teaching in London. Most thoughts (typical of those in England) were of the state of politics, leading up to the May election. I was in Haringey at the time, a particularly left-wing authority, still staggering after the winter of discontent. We were so focused on our own woes that the Scotland issue didn't really count for much. I do not think that the London/SE-centric parochial view has changed much since, as I still have a lot of contact with old friends and family down there.

[theblether]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

As a young laddie then theblether I am interested to know the opinions of yourself and other Scots as to what was happening at the time.

I can say I questioned my parents on this issue a long while ago....perhaps in '88 or '89 and both admitted not having voted.

They were sheepish i will admit....and while my father was working my mother simply said she was busy looking after the children.

Both valid answers but they don't really capture the mood of the time. Clearly there was something wrong in the run up to the vote.

Surely there was a campaign by all sides to make sure each and every person voted?

If there wasn't then why not??

Over to you....

In those days, I was teaching in London. Most thoughts (typical of those in England) were of the state of politics, leading up to the May election. I was in Haringey at the time, a particularly left-wing authority, still staggering after the winter of discontent. We were so focused on our own woes that the Scotland issue didn't really count for much. I do not think that the London/SE-centric parochial view has changed much since, as I still have a lot of contact with old friends and family down there.

No shock there......London and the South East is not famed for giving a toss about the North, it's about time Westminster was made into a Museum and Parliament relocated to Manchester.

[smokie36]

The vote was unwinnable......George Cunningham introduced the 40% rule ( 40% of the electorate had to vote yes ) and he knew that was virtually unachievable.

The highest post war vote in Scotland was around 81% in 1951, that tells you that even at best, 19% of the electorate are disengaged. In the previous elections the turnout hovered around the mid 70's, so let's take an average of 75%.

To take an average of 75% and then create a 40% figure of the electorate to cross the artificial line, it would have required a 54% majority Yes vote from the electorate that would normally be expected to vote.

The opinion polls weren't giving that type of lead for the Devolutionists............now the introduction of the rule had two effects, it confirmed to many that a no show = effectively a No vote, the first time in UK election history when there was an incentive NOT TO VOTE, ( shameful on so many levels ), and it also disengaged a lot of people who knew the vote was rigged and wouldn't validate it by showing up, in effect a low level boycott.

That was the second time in the 70's that a Referendum was boycotted incidentally, 7x7 will remember the first one.

So we had a rigged election, with a built in disincentive to vote. If it had been a straight and fair fight then the turnout would have been a lot higher, up to the 75% plus mark, and bizarrely, I believe that it would have resulted in a No vote.

I believe that the No Shows were people who were against Devolution, and I believe that the majority of Devolutionists actually voted, ( not all though as I mentioned ).

It was another example of Labour being too smart for itself, it created a lot of resentment by introducing the 40% rule, and it wasn't necessary, as they would most likely have won anyway.

If they had won a straight fight it would most likely have killed Devolution off for years......if not forever.

I hope all that makes sense to you?

Thanks for your comments.

Interesting you say it was those against devolution who voted no as my father was adamant he would not have voted for it. In fact he wanted a vote on straightforward independence.

There may have been many others who felt this way also. Perhaps cutting off their noses in a way yet it seems the last vote was a real fudge in every way.

In the main, given this was 1979, most people would have been following this on the BBC/ITV news or through the newspapers of course.

Was there a mainstream media outlet in favour of the SNP?

[smokie36]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

As a young laddie then theblether I am interested to know the opinions of yourself and other Scots as to what was happening at the time.

I can say I questioned my parents on this issue a long while ago....perhaps in '88 or '89 and both admitted not having voted.

They were sheepish i will admit....and while my father was working my mother simply said she was busy looking after the children.

Both valid answers but they don't really capture the mood of the time. Clearly there was something wrong in the run up to the vote.

Surely there was a campaign by all sides to make sure each and every person voted?

If there wasn't then why not??

Over to you....

In those days, I was teaching in London. Most thoughts (typical of those in England) were of the state of politics, leading up to the May election. I was in Haringey at the time, a particularly left-wing authority, still staggering after the winter of discontent. We were so focused on our own woes that the Scotland issue didn't really count for much. I do not think that the London/SE-centric parochial view has changed much since, as I still have a lot of contact with old friends and family down there.

It hasn't Rob. I have spent most of the last fifteen years living in London.

[theblether]

The vote was unwinnable......George Cunningham introduced the 40% rule ( 40% of the electorate had to vote yes ) and he knew that was virtually unachievable.

The highest post war vote in Scotland was around 81% in 1951, that tells you that even at best, 19% of the electorate are disengaged. In the previous elections the turnout hovered around the mid 70's, so let's take an average of 75%.

To take an average of 75% and then create a 40% figure of the electorate to cross the artificial line, it would have required a 54% majority Yes vote from the electorate that would normally be expected to vote.

The opinion polls weren't giving that type of lead for the Devolutionists............now the introduction of the rule had two effects, it confirmed to many that a no show = effectively a No vote, the first time in UK election history when there was an incentive NOT TO VOTE, ( shameful on so many levels ), and it also disengaged a lot of people who knew the vote was rigged and wouldn't validate it by showing up, in effect a low level boycott.

That was the second time in the 70's that a Referendum was boycotted incidentally, 7x7 will remember the first one.

So we had a rigged election, with a built in disincentive to vote. If it had been a straight and fair fight then the turnout would have been a lot higher, up to the 75% plus mark, and bizarrely, I believe that it would have resulted in a No vote.

I believe that the No Shows were people who were against Devolution, and I believe that the majority of Devolutionists actually voted, ( not all though as I mentioned ).

It was another example of Labour being too smart for itself, it created a lot of resentment by introducing the 40% rule, and it wasn't necessary, as they would most likely have won anyway.

If they had won a straight fight it would most likely have killed Devolution off for years......if not forever.

I hope all that makes sense to you?

Thanks for your comments.

Interesting you say it was those against devolution who voted no as my father was adamant he would not have voted for it. In fact he wanted a vote on straightforward independence.

There may have been many others who felt this way also. Perhaps cutting off their noses in a way yet it seems the last vote was a real fudge in every way.

In the main, given this was 1979, most people would have been following this on the BBC/ITV news or through the newspapers of course.

Was there a mainstream media outlet in favour of the SNP?

No, I remember at that time the daily Record was rabidly socialist, and going on communist, I read it every day and their columnists were quite atrocious. The SNP had no friends in the media as there were only two political channels on TV at that time, BBC and STV. Newsnight didn't come along until 1982 and BBC2 wasn't really involved in politics.

So the media was dominated by pro-Unionist bias, and on top of that, the Labour Party machine was set against it's own legislation. The party activists didn't do their usual going around sheltered housing picking up the elderly and taking them to polling booths, it wasn't worth the bother, cos as I said, a no show favoured the anti-devolutionists.

It was a surreal, anti-democratic and disgusting blight on the record of the Labour Party, to introduce legislation which gave a disincentive to vote was scandalous, shameful, seriously shameful.

[Rob8891]

Thanks for the info, theblether. If memory serves me well, the SNP withdrew support for the Callaghan government, which was a significant factor in him having to call the '79 general election. ....we all know the hell that resulted from that. I wonder what the outcome of present UK government's (mis)handling of the referendum issue will be for the UK this time, (although I think we've had a pretty good from Blether's posts).

[theblether]

The SNP were rightly enraged at the Labour Party for their disgusting assault against democracy, and they did table a motion of no confidence after the Referendum, it really was shoot yourself in the foot time again for Labour, they made a rod for their own back, and they deserved to be punished.

However it was a moot point, the election was called for the June of that year, and the 5 year mandate was to expire in the October, so the Labour term was in it's dying months anyway.

Labour regretted that 40% rule for years......a serious self inflicted wound.

[MAJIC]

Embra was awash with poppy sellers today....my cousin is off to Afghanistan for Xmas....while we are all very proud of him it is a worry for all of us.

Yes...he is Scottish by birth and happily serving in an English regiment. I can't see those ties disappearing overnight.

Very true, Soldiers ties are a special bond,and surpass any amount of Nationalism.

[smokie36]

No, I remember at that time the daily Record was rabidly socialist, and going on communist, I read it every day and their columnists were quite atrocious. The SNP had no friends in the media as there were only two political channels on TV at that time, BBC and STV. Newsnight didn't come along until 1982 and BBC2 wasn't really involved in politics.

So the media was dominated by pro-Unionist bias, and on top of that, the Labour Party machine was set against it's own legislation. The party activists didn't do their usual going around sheltered housing picking up the elderly and taking them to polling booths, it wasn't worth the bother, cos as I said, a no show favoured the anti-devolutionists.

It was a surreal, anti-democratic and disgusting blight on the record of the Labour Party, to introduce legislation which gave a disincentive to vote was scandalous, shameful, seriously shameful.

This would fit in with my own recollection of events.

Bear in mind that while I was a young laddie in those days my uncle was an activist, and indeed all of my family on my father's side remain so.

Not SNP as such but more active......theblether will understand what I mean by that, given my name etc....

Anyway for them not to have voted was staggering and I thank you for the explanation of events.

So looking at the history of the process we can say that the SNP had no support from the media....I would have expected them to adopt a grass roots policy in that case.

Campaigning in every town and village for the common man's vote.

Why did that not happen...and would it have been successful?

I will add the caveat that I am aware of trade union politics of the time, given my grandfather was a high hiedyin in the NUM at the time.

Other opinions are welcomed if you please?

[StreetCowboy]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

So, apart from apathy, why was the turnout so low?

I would like to point out that I posted this before the above post was edited from a request to wait 5 mionutes to become as it is now.

The turn-out wasn't low. The turn-out was about average. However, the election rules effectively slanted the field in favour of the status quo - a sensible move on a vote for something very difficult to reverse, such as secession, but not appropriate for a change of government or a change in administrative rules. Unfortunately, after that debacle, we can't have such a rule now, when it would be more appropriate.

SC

[nontabury]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

So, apart from apathy, why was the turnout so low?

I would like to point out that I posted this before the above post was edited from a request to wait 5 mionutes to become as it is now.

The turn-out wasn't low. The turn-out was about average. However, the election rules effectively slanted the field in favour of the status quo - a sensible move on a vote for something very difficult to reverse, such as secession, but not appropriate for a change of government or a change in administrative rules. Unfortunately, after that debacle, we can't have such a rule now, when it would be more appropriate.

SC

So if there won't be such a rule this time,do I take it that it's quite possible in the 2014 vote for there to be a turn out of only 65% and let's say of those who vote,51% vote Yes,while 49% vote No, this would then result in Scotland going independence on the vote of approximately 33% of the Scottish people.Correct or not.

[StreetCowboy]

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

So, apart from apathy, why was the turnout so low?

I would like to point out that I posted this before the above post was edited from a request to wait 5 mionutes to become as it is now.

The turn-out wasn't low. The turn-out was about average. However, the election rules effectively slanted the field in favour of the status quo - a sensible move on a vote for something very difficult to reverse, such as secession, but not appropriate for a change of government or a change in administrative rules. Unfortunately, after that debacle, we can't have such a rule now, when it would be more appropriate.

SC

So if there won't be such a rule this time,do I take it that it's quite possible in the 2014 vote for there to be a turn out of only 65% and let's say of those who vote,51% vote Yes,while 49% vote No, this would then result in Scotland going independence on the vote of approximately 33% of the Scottish people.Correct or not.

I'm not sure - I'm not aware of the details of the rules, since I'm not directly involved.

SC

[7by7]

If it is the simple 'first past the post' style referendum which presumably the SNP want; then yes, Scotland could become independent on the whim of less than 33% of the population.

But as has been proven before; SNP support may be high when it comes to local elections, but when it comes to the important matter of a general election their support is pitifully small; and getting smaller. So they will almost certainly lose this referendum; as even theblether admits.

The only chance they have is the apathy of the Scottish electorate. Therefore it is important that all Scots eligible to vote do so.

I have made my position clear; I'm a Unionist. But I'm also a democrat, and if Scotland is to leave the union or remain it should be; nay, must be the decision of the majority of the Scottish people.

[7by7]

Tell me what happened in 1979 7by7....why did that vote end as it did?

Why so many Scots couldn't be bothered to vote; only a Scot can tell you. Maybe they just didn't think it was important enough?

If a such an important referendum was being held in England I'd certainly have cast my vote; as I did in the 1974 EEC referendum.

Let's hope that this time the Scottish people can be bothered to go out and vote, so that the democratic decision is made; whatever they decide

.

I do get amused at the lack of knowledge among our English members, as I say this is the problem with Google, it only gives you a very narrow view of history. We Scots that lived through this period know why the turnout was so low.

Post facts which I may or may not have confirmed by research, and according to you I'm an 'Instant Google expert' who actually knows nothing!

Say I don't know the answer to a question and according to you this proves that I'm an 'Instant Google expert' who actually knows nothing!

Maybe instead of honestly saying I didn't know the answer I should have, as you do with questions you can't answer, simply ignored it. But I prefer to debate honestly.

I don't get amused by the lack of knowledge of the South East corner of England among our Scottish members; I'm saddened. We are not all rich, tax dodging bankers or foreign oligarchs.

In the words of Ralph McTell:-

Let me take you by the hand

And lead you through the streets of London;

I'll show you something

Which will make you change your mind.

Edited November 11, 2012 by 7by7

[theblether]

We're reaching for the hyperbole again......and for some reason people can't see the hypocrisy of language.

" I am a Democrat "..............I would hope so.

" On the whim "....................No, after a lengthy campaign that will be bitterly fought, the electorate may decide to vote Yes.

It would be better not to denigrate the democratic process and recognize that we are all aware that there are plenty of issues to be fought out.

I have stated clearly that I expect defeat this time........however this is just one more step on the road to Independence, defeat here is not the end of the road.

The problems for the Unionists include.......they will need to give compelling reasons to persuade the electorate to remain, and they need to outline the new deal for Scotland, and once they have done so, they will need to keep their promise.

On top of that, they have created a platform for the Nationalists, Holyrood will always haunt Westminster..........and the more unpopular the Westminster government is, then the more likely it will be that the Scots take advantage of the mid term election to show them we mean business.

Hmmm, I wonder who it was that enforced the mid term election strategy?