Implications of Scottish Independence

[funk de fino]

I think you are projecting. Not that it seems you need any help to get riled up it seems a default position.

As I said--dance alone with your hot button issue.

Considering you claim to have no car in this race you seem to get hot up about it.

I don't see this level of heat in other threads you get involved in.

 

[Craig B]

Ha ha well I just did compare Scotland to a region of a country. Just like Rolfe compared it to part of the USSR, and to a member-state of the EU, neither of which it is.

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" If I do, does that make you a summer's day?

The question is not what we "compare" Scotland with, but whether whether it is really a region, or part of a country, or a country. As stated by the UK government, Scotland is a country, presently in Union with other countries of the British Isles. So that's what it is. It has always been a country.

 

[Francesca R]

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" If I do, does that make you a summer's day?

The question is not what we "compare" Scotland with, but whether whether it is really a region, or part of a country, or a country.

Then why did you--along with two other nationalists--react to me comparing it?

 

[Francesca R]

.I don't see this level of heat in other threads you get involved in.

Short memory

 

[Craig B]

Then why did you--along with two other nationalists--react to me comparing it?

Because a comparing is not an identity.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What level of support would be sufficient to confer legitimacy to either result, in your opinion? Would a 52-48 split do? 55-45? 60-40?

ETA: Assuming, say, 80% turnout.

That's a very hard question to answer and one that should have been answered before the referendum started.

Let's see if ludicrous extremes help.
A. Nobody at all bothers to turn out. A voteless draw. I'd take that as support for the status quo.
B. 80% turnout, 50 / 50 split. How does this differ from (A)?
C. 1 person turns out and votes Yes.
I can't see how that justifies all the fandango that would follow from declaring independence.
D. 1 person turns out and votes "No". I can see how that justifies business as usual.

Now anyone who, like Rolfe, is emotionally committed to independence might say I'm wrong to see a difference between C and D. Short of a shrug, I have no response.
E. 80% turnout, 60:40 either way. I'd say go with the result.
F 80% turnout 55 yes, 45 no.
Hmmmmm. This is where I'd be strongly urging the politicians to sit down and have a think. Is this really a mandate for independence? I don't know. Is (B)?

G. 80% turnout , 54% No, 46% yes.(The poll prediction that triggered my comment last page)- Again it seems to me this is an adequate vote for the status quo, but it's something far more than that:
It's a message to the UK government that nearly half the people in one component of the union want out.

If that's not a wake up call to Westminster, I can't think what would be - and if the pollsters are right, the anti-UK bloc is going to be at least that big. (I am still not convinced the polls are right, but that's a side issue).

I would suggest such a vote of no confidence should trigger the resignation of HMG and be followed by an immediate general election.

The effects on UK politics of such a result could be game changing and arguably must be.
Frankly , I suspect a "No" win of that order will not be a win for long. The destruction of the UK as an entity would follow inevitably within a few years.

 

[Francesca R]

Because a comparing is not an identity.

What? You just said the question is not what Scotland is compared to, but what it is.

It is perfectly valid to compare Scotland to a region, as I did. Just as is is perfectly valid to compare it to part of the former USSR, or to a member state of the EU, as Rolfe did. It is not any of these things.

Yet you (well three of you even including Rolfe, irony of ironies), only reacted to one comparison. That's weird, and if I may observe, overly sensitive about something.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Could this help?


For anyone interested.

 

[Soapy Sam]

The Auckland Islands?

Ork(ney) + (Shet)land ?

Reasonable try though. 9 /10.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's a very hard question to answer and one that should have been answered before the referendum started.

Let's see if ludicrous extremes help.
A. Nobody at all bothers to turn out. A voteless draw. I'd take that as support for the status quo.
B. 80% turnout, 50 / 50 split. How does this differ from (A)?
C. 1 person turns out and votes Yes.
I can't see how that justifies all the fandango that would follow from declaring independence.
D. 1 person turns out and votes "No". I can see how that justifies business as usual.

Now anyone who, like Rolfe, is emotionally committed to independence might say I'm wrong to see a difference between C and D. Short of a shrug, I have no response.
E. 80% turnout, 60:40 either way. I'd say go with the result.
F 80% turnout 55 yes, 45 no.
Hmmmmm. This is where I'd be strongly urging the politicians to sit down and have a think. Is this really a mandate for independence? I don't know. Is (B)?

G. 80% turnout , 54% No, 46% yes.(The poll prediction that triggered my comment last page)- Again it seems to me this is an adequate vote for the status quo, but it's something far more than that: It's a message to the UK government that nearly half the people in one component of the union want out.
If that's not a wake up call to Westminster, I can't think what would be - and if the pollsters are right, the anti-UK bloc is going to be at least that big. (I am still not convinced the polls are right, but that's a side issue).

I would suggest such a vote of no confidence should trigger the resignation of HMG and be followed by an immediate general election.

The effects on UK politics of such a result could be game changing and arguably must be.
Frankly , I suspect a "No" win of that order will not be a win for long. The destruction of the UK as an entity would follow inevitably within a few years.

Just for clarity on the bit I've highlighted: in fact, the scenario outlined here would not imply that "nearly half the people" in Scotland want out. In fact, it would imply that 35% (80% x 46%) of the voting population voted for independence. Most objective people would refer to that proportion as very slightly more than one third.

Furthermore, there is approximately....ZERO chance that such an outcome would trigger the resignation of the UK Government, the dissolution of the UK parliament, and a snap election. In fact, there is ZERO chance that any outcome in the Scottish referendum - even a 100% Yes vote on a 100% turnout - would trigger such a move. None whatsoever.

As you might imagine, it follows from this that I disagree entirely with your final paragraph. Any "No" majority in Scotland, regardless of the turnout, will by definition be a valid indicator of the majority desire of the Scottish population not to change anything. And it will not lead in and of itself to any disruption or unrest in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK. The problems only ever arise if there's a narrow "Yes" majority on a low turnout. If that were to happen, then the legitimacy of the vote might well be questionable (if, for example, it's 51/49 for "Yes" on only a 60% turnout, this actually means that only some 30% of the entire Scottish voting population put a tick in the "Yes" box on the ballot paper. Does that validate independence?

 

[LondonJohn]

The Auckland Islands?

Ork(ney) + (Shet)land ?

Reasonable try though. 9 /10.

I prefer the more literal "Orkland". It sounds vaguely Tolkienian.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Just for clarity on the bit I've highlighted: in fact, the scenario outlined here would not imply that "nearly half the people" in Scotland want out. In fact, it would imply that 35% (80% x 46%) of the voting population voted for independence. Most objective people would refer to that proportion as very slightly more than one third.

Yes, but I'm assuming the vote to be representative of the general population, which is sort of the lie all elected parties subscribe to.

Furthermore, there is approximately....ZERO chance that such an outcome would trigger the resignation of the UK Government, the dissolution of the UK parliament, and a snap election. In fact, there is ZERO chance that any outcome in the Scottish referendum - even a 100% Yes vote on a 100% turnout - would trigger such a move. None whatsoever.

I agree. Someone will be along in a minute to explain to you how this is indicative of the contempt English politicians have for Scottish politics.

My view is that while I no longer expect honourable behaviour from politicians, I try to keep a tiny spark of hope alive in my heart.

(ETA-You'll note I said "Should " trigger... I don't suggest it would.)

As you might imagine, it follows from this that I disagree entirely with your final paragraph. Any "No" majority in Scotland, regardless of the turnout, will by definition be a valid indicator of the majority desire of the Scottish population not to change anything. And it will not lead in and of itself to any disruption or unrest in Scotland or anywhere else in the UK.

I wish I could agree. I do not. I think this has gone too far.

The problems only ever arise if there's a narrow "Yes" majority on a low turnout. If that were to happen, then the legitimacy of the vote might well be questionable (if, for example, it's 51/49 for "Yes" on only a 60% turnout, this actually means that only some 30% of the entire Scottish voting population put a tick in the "Yes" box on the ballot paper. Does that validate independence?

I see trouble either way. The latter kind, (a small "yes") leads to an immediate constitutional problem. If anyone outside Scotland tries to suggest that (say) a 3% majority is inadequate, there would be serious trouble. The other kind (a small "no") will be just as destructive, but less immediately or obviously so and more insidious.

My initial hope (and expectation) was for at least a 65 /35 No. That no longer looks credible. I honestly believe we are drifting into something very dangerous.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, but I'm assuming the vote to be representative of the general population, which is sort of the lie all elected parties subscribe to.

This approach has validity when it's the usual question of "Would you like to vote for Person/Party A or Person/Party B, or would you not like to vote at all?" There is no "status quo" option in this sort of normal election. But in a vote where there is a "status quo" option - such as the Scottish independence referendum - the more intellectually-honest and appropriate way to approach any interpretation of the poll is that "didn't votes" equate to some sort of indication of desire to preserve the status quo.

And with that being the case, in something like the Scottish independence referendum, it's more appropriate to take into account the actual percentage of the electorate voting for change, rather than simply look at the raw share of vote at face value. As I said before, if there's a very high turn-out, then even a very narrow majority for "Yes" would carry sufficient validity. But if there's a low turnout, I suggest that there may be very real issues if there's a narrow "Yes" majority, since it would indicate that only a minority proportion (perhaps between 30% and 40%) of all Scottish people aged 16 or over actually put the tick in the box for independence.

I agree. Someone will be along in a minute to explain to you how this is indicative of the contempt English politicians have for Scottish politics.

And I'll be along in less than a minute to explain to you the problems underpinning what you've written here. The biggest mistake/giveaway is your misuse of the word "English".

My view is that while I no longer expect honourable behaviour from politicians, I try to keep a tiny spark of hope alive in my heart.

You think it would be a matter of dishonour if the UK Govt/Parliament didn't stand down and call a General Election if there was a narrow "No" majority? Really??

I see trouble either way. The latter kind, (a small "yes") leads to an immediate constitutional problem. If anyone outside Scotland tries to suggest that (say) a 3% majority is inadequate, there would be serious trouble. The other kind (a small "no") will be just as destructive, but less immediately or obviously so and more insidious.

I disagree with both parts. I think that it would be entirely justifiable for anyone - whether within or outside Scotland - to question the validity of a very narrow "Yes" majority on a very low turnout. As someone else also pointed out in a similar reductio ad absurdum, suppose that only 20 people in the whole of Scotland turned out to vote, with 11 voting "Yes" and 9 "No". Would this be a justifiable result upon which to base a legitimate "will of the people" claim for independence? And back in the real world, would a 51/49 majority for "Yes" on a turnout of 60% be a legitimate "Yes" vote? In this sort of scenario, I am not claiming to know the answer (though I tend to the opinion that it's not legitimate). The point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion such a result would be an entirely valid debate to be had as to whether or not that sort of result would be an adequate endorsement of independence.

The point that's specifically applicable to this referendum is that there's a null option of the status quo, and this option also corresponds with an active vote for "No". In that respect, it's an asymmetrical situation (whether nationalists understand/like it or not).

My initial hope (and expectation) was for at least a 65 /35 No. That no longer looks credible. I honestly believe we are drifting into something very dangerous.

I don't. I think that any sort of majority for "No" will shut down the debate completely. That's because it will by definition mean that a) more people who bothered to vote voted for "No" than "Yes", and b) far fewer than 50% of the electorate voted "Yes" (since the turnout must by definition be less than 100%). For both these reasons, the "Yes" campaign would immediately lose all legitimacy for at least a decade. I predict with total confidence that if there is any sort of "No" majority in the referendum - regardless of the turnout - then the whole issue of Scottish independence will immediately fall completely off the political agenda.

 

[Craig B]

... the more intellectually-honest and appropriate way to approach any interpretation of the poll is that "didn't votes" equate to some sort of indication of desire to preserve the status quo.

(...)

I predict with total confidence that if there is any sort of "No" majority in the referendum - regardless of the turnout - then the whole issue of Scottish independence will immediately fall completely off the political agenda.

Well, you can't get much more "intellectually honest and appropriate" than that.

 

[Soapy Sam]

This approach has validity when it's the usual question of "Would you like to vote for Person/Party A or Person/Party B, or would you not like to vote at all?" There is no "status quo" option in this sort of normal election. But in a vote where there is a "status quo" option - such as the Scottish independence referendum - the more intellectually-honest and appropriate way to approach any interpretation of the poll is that "didn't votes" equate to some sort of indication of desire to preserve the status quo.

And with that being the case, in something like the Scottish independence referendum, it's more appropriate to take into account the actual percentage of the electorate voting for change, rather than simply look at the raw share of vote at face value. As I said before, if there's a very high turn-out, then even a very narrow majority for "Yes" would carry sufficient validity. But if there's a low turnout, I suggest that there may be very real issues if there's a narrow "Yes" majority, since it would indicate that only a minority proportion (perhaps between 30% and 40%) of all Scottish people aged 16 or over actually put the tick in the box for independence.

That was exactly what I was suggesting a page or so back.
The problem is that there is (AFAIK) no mechanism for such consideration in place. At present, if only 1 person bothers to turn out - and votes "yes" - then Scotland will leave the union.

And I'll be along in less than a minute to explain to you the problems underpinning what you've written here. The biggest mistake/giveaway is your misuse of the word "English".

You are, I think, mistaking my intent here.
I was being ironic.

You think it would be a matter of dishonour if the UK Govt/Parliament didn't stand down and call a General Election if there was a narrow "No" majority? Really??

Yes. If I were prime minister of the UK and half the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK on my watch? Yes. I would tender my resignation.
Would I expect it of either David Cameron or the Labour fellow?
No.

I disagree with both parts. I think that it would be entirely justifiable for anyone - whether within or outside Scotland - to question the validity of a very narrow "Yes" majority on a very low turnout. As someone else also pointed out in a similar reductio ad absurdum, suppose that only 20 people in the whole of Scotland turned out to vote, with 11 voting "Yes" and 9 "No". Would this be a justifiable result upon which to base a legitimate "will of the people" claim for independence? And back in the real world, would a 51/49 majority for "Yes" on a turnout of 60% be a legitimate "Yes" vote? In this sort of scenario, I am not claiming to know the answer (though I tend to the opinion that it's not legitimate). The point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion such a result would be an entirely valid debate to be had as to whether or not that sort of result would be an adequate endorsement of independence.

The point that's specifically applicable to this referendum is that there's a null option of the status quo, and this option also corresponds with an active vote for "No". In that respect, it's an asymmetrical situation (whether nationalists understand/like it or not).

I think if you look back through my posts on the matter you will realise we are broadly of like mind on this. But this sort of "Pause for thought" is not going to happen. As I said, if one person votes yes and everyone else stays home, that will constitute a majority. You think that's daft. So do I. We are not making the rules though.

I don't. I think that any sort of majority for "No" will shut down the debate completely. That's because it will by definition mean that a) more people who bothered to vote voted for "No" than "Yes", and b) far fewer than 50% of the electorate voted "Yes" (since the turnout must by definition be less than 100%). For both these reasons, the "Yes" campaign would immediately lose all legitimacy for at least a decade. I predict with total confidence that if there is any sort of "No" majority in the referendum - regardless of the turnout - then the whole issue of Scottish independence will immediately fall completely off the political agenda.

I hope you are right, but I increasingly doubt it.

 

[LondonJohn]

That was exactly what I was suggesting a page or so back.
The problem is that there is (AFAIK) no mechanism for such consideration in place. At present, if only 1 person bothers to turn out - and votes "yes" - then Scotland will leave the union.





You are, I think, mistaking my intent here.
I was being ironic.
Yes. If I were prime minister of the UK and half the people of Scotland voted to leave the UK on my watch? Yes. I would tender my resignation.
Would I expect it of either David Cameron or the Labour fellow?
No.
I think if you look back through my posts on the matter you will realise we are broadly of like mind on this. But this sort of "Pause for thought" is not going to happen. As I said, if one person votes yes and everyone else stays home, that will constitute a majority. You think that's daft. So do I. We are not making the rules though.

I hope you are right, but I increasingly doubt it.

My apologies for my misinterpretation of your post - my irony detector is currently in for its 50,000-ironies servicing

As you point out, technically-speaking if only 20 people turned out to vote with 11 voting "Yes" and 9 "No", then it would return a "Yes" majority. However, I consider that if that were to happen (obviously it won't, but for the sake of argument....), then I severely doubt that the UK Government would agree to independence - even though it has pledged to abide by the referendum result.

If that's correct, then the salient point is where the crossover points lie: in other words, what levels of turnout and "Yes" majority would be sufficient to give the "Yes" result validity (incidentally, I've already argued that this issue only comes into play with a "Yes" majority - any "No" majority has validity regardless of the size of the majority or the turnout). Some scenarios:

1) 50% turnout with a 50.2/49.8 "Yes" majority? A valid "Yes" result? Maybe not, in my view.

2) 40% turnout with a 60/40 "Yes" majority? Again, maybe not in my view.

3) 40% turnout with a 67/33 "Yes" majority? In my view, probably now a valid "Yes".

4) 60% turnout with a 54/46 "Yes" majority? Probably a valid "Yes" as well.

5) 75% turnout with a 51/49 "Yes" majority? Probably also a valid "Yes".


I'd reiterate that these are points that I'm putting out there for debate. I don't have a fixed opinion on this subject, but I think it's well worthy of discussion and exploration. Some may feel that the turnout and/or size of majority are both of no matter: that the majority vote will prevail regardless of either. I tend to disagree, since I would suggest that (for example) a 50.1/49.9 "Yes" majority on a 35% turnout (meaning that only some 17.5% of those eligible to vote placed a vote for "Yes") is not a constitutionally-robust basis upon which to claim independence. I would like to hear others' views though.

 

[The Don]

What does a failure to take part in the independence referendum indicate ?

In the case of a general election there are many reasons not to vote:

• Wasn't able to for reasons beyond control
• Couldn't be bothered
• No candidate represented me - would have voted for none of the above
• Seat is so safe, no point voting
• ...and I'm sure many more

In the case of the independence referendum I wonder how the "didn't turn out" should be interpreted. Are these people so disinterested that they do not care at all whether Scotland is independent or not (in which case is this tacit support for the status quo ?) or perhaps they are genuine "don't know" in which case how should this be interpreted (if at all) ?

 

[Rolfe]

What can you say about people who don't vote? Nothing other than that they're content to allow others to make the decision for them. That they are content to accept whichever option the majority of those who vote go for.

To say, oh look I lost but I claim the non-voters for my side so I win after all, is ridiculous. Claiming that abstention is tacit support for the status quo really does smack slightly of desperation to me.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

What can you say about people who don't vote? Nothing other than that they're content to allow others to make the decision for them. That they are content to accept whichever option the majority of those who vote go for.

To say, oh look I lost but I claim the non-voters for my side so I win after all, is ridiculous. Claiming that abstention is tacit support for the status quo really does smack slightly of desperation to me.

Rolfe.

In a referendum such as this where the null option is the same as a positive vote for "No", I'd suggest that it smacks slightly of desperation (well, blinkered bias perhaps) to refuse to understand that it's intellectually appropriate to consider that rather more of the "did not votes" are apathetic "No" supporters than are apathetic "Yes" supporters.

Besides, the polls and other indicators tend to show that this is all a semantic debate anyhow, since it looks rather as if there will be a "No" majority. If that's the case, then perhaps it might be interesting to see whether the "Yes" campaigners try to claim the "did not votes" for themselves.....

LondonJohn
(in case you didn't know that it was I who wrote this post, even though it has my name in very large type in the left-hand margin )

 

[Giz]

What can you say about people who don't vote? Nothing other than that they're content to allow others to make the decision for them. That they are content to accept whichever option the majority of those who vote go for.

To say, oh look I lost but I claim the non-voters for my side so I win after all, is ridiculous.

Argh! - I basically agree with Rolfe on this one. (Nonetheless, I hope there's a high turnout - whichever side that favours).