• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Scottish Independence

funk de fino said:
Self determination. See Scotlands voting habits compared to middle England.

Grow up? Seriously? Get a grip.
Click to expand...

Ah so it is Nationlism, you do think you're different. Ugly.

You know what we should separate government here in London, have you seen the different voting habits between Kensington and Tower Hamlets!
 
Darat said:
I was dealing with the point - at what point would you say the results should not be binding on the rest of the population? I know you think it requires more than 3 people, so you obviously do have a cut-off point below which you don't think the results should be binding, so what would make it a binding decision, what is your cut-off point?
Click to expand...

Is there a cut off point for general election turn outs?

If not why should there be one for a referendum? If people do not want to vote on it, then they lose their say. Voting in the UK is done on majority voting. Like I said, pesky "conditions" used when it suits some.
 
funk de fino said:
...snip...

If not why should there be one for a referendum? If people do not want to vote on it, then they lose their say. Voting in the UK is done on majority voting. Like I said, pesky "conditions" used when it suits some.
Click to expand...

But not three people.
 
A turnout of three people is about as likely as 100% turnout. Probably less so in fact.

Do we have a contingency plan in place in case only three people turn out for a general election? If not, why not?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
A turnout of three people is about as likely as 100% turnout. Probably less so in fact.

Do we have a contingency plan in place in case only three people turn out for a general election? If not, why not?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

May have slipped yours and Fino's attention but I'm talking about a referendum not the general election - they are quite different things - just because get to vote in both doesn't make them the same so can we stick to talking about the referendum?

It appears you also think 3 people is too small a turnout to bind the rest of the population so where is your cut-off point? Personally I would suggest that voting in such referendums should be compulsory so 100% turn out is (practically) achieved.
 
funk de fino said:
Childish insults. Scotland is not England or Wales or Ireland or France.
Click to expand...

No but they have one thing in common - they are full of people that want the same things. Plus we have found out that by co-operating with other people some of which, shock horror!, come from different parts of the globe we can achieve great things.

When you want to put away your immature notions of nationality, a notion grounded on arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by the nastiest bugger who had the biggest sword, let the rest of us know. Maybe we can fix this planet.
 
Last edited:
martu said:
No but they have one thing in common - they are full of people that want the same things. Plus we have found out that by co-operating with other people, some of which, (shock horror!) come from different parts of the globe we can achieve great things.

When you want to put away your immature notions of nationality, a notion grounded on arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by the nastiest bugger who had the biggest sword, let the rest of us know. Maybe we can fix this planet.
Click to expand...

You know continuing with childish insults that attacks (in a derogatory way) other peoples opinions does not help your case.

An independent Scotland is not isolationist. We want to co-operate with the world.

ETA - spelling
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
May have slipped yours and Fino's attention but I'm talking about a referendum not the general election - they are quite different things - just because get to vote in both doesn't make them the same so can we stick to talking about the referendum?

It appears you also think 3 people is too small a turnout to bind the rest of the population so where is your cut-off point? Personally I would suggest that voting in such referendums should be compulsory so 100% turn out is (practically) achieved.
Click to expand...

Yes, that figures you would want a ridiculous condition. You're not alone.

You have yet to say why there should be a limit for turn out? If people do not turn out, they lose their say. Same as an election or any other free vote.

You are also making crap up. I have not said 3 is too low. I havent seen anyone else say that either. That's dishonest. If only 3 turn out then that is the way it will be. No-one is stopping anyone from turning out.
 
funk de fino said:
Childish insults. Scotland is not England or Wales or Ireland or France.
Click to expand...


I'm never very sure why the desire to be a politically independent state within the EU is regarded as laudable when it's Ireland or Denmark or Slovakia or Bosnia we're talking about, but suddenly when it's Scotland we're told it's "ugly" and "the darker side of nationalism" and so on.

Scottish nationalism post-war has been non-violent, respected the democratic process, and inclusive. Nobody has been hurt that I know of, and barring a few pillar-boxes, there's been pretty much no violence. In my subjective opinion there's less racism in Scotland, and immigrants in general integrate rather better than in England.

Now I realise we've had this conversation with Martu before, and s/he believes that all expressions of nationality are a bad thing. We've been round that one before, and I for one can't be bothered going round it again. However, for many people it doesn't seem incongruous at all to damn Scottish aspirations to independence as "ugly" while at the same time issuing formal congratulations to Kosovo on achieving independence, and resisting all attempts to integrate Britain more closely into the EU.

Why is this I wonder?

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
May have slipped yours and Fino's attention but I'm talking about a referendum not the general election - they are quite different things - just because get to vote in both doesn't make them the same so can we stick to talking about the referendum?

It appears you also think 3 people is too small a turnout to bind the rest of the population so where is your cut-off point? Personally I would suggest that voting in such referendums should be compulsory so 100% turn out is (practically) achieved.
Click to expand...


You haven't explained what's so different.

I didn't express any opinion about what should happen with a turnout of three. I didn't express an opinion of what should happen if aliens stole the ballot boxes either.

Your desire for compulsory voting is noted.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
It appears you also think 3 people is too small a turnout to bind the rest of the population so where is your cut-off point? Personally I would suggest that voting in such referendums should be compulsory so 100% turn out is (practically) achieved.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure we could have a good long chat about whether the cut off should be 1,723,456 or 1,723,457 votes I'm not sure it would gain anything.

It also looks as if other UK referendums don't need 'conditions' even when they are for similar things

WP said:
The United Kingdom referendum of 1975 was a post-legislative referendum held on 5 June 1975 in the United Kingdom to gauge support for the country's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), often known as the Common Market at the time, which it had entered in 1973 under the Conservative government of Edward Heath. Labour's manifesto for the October 1974 general election promised that the people would decide "through the ballot box"[1] whether to remain in the EEC. The electorate expressed significant support for EEC membership, with 67% in favour on a 65% turnout. This was the first and so far only referendum held throughout the entire United Kingdom in its history; other referendums have been arranged only in certain areas, such as Scotland, Wales, Greater London and individual towns.
Click to expand...

So why should a referendum for independence?
 
funk de fino said:
Yes, that figures you would want a ridiculous condition. You're not alone.
Click to expand...

Why is that a "ridiculous condition"? I think it's a good and sensible idea for referendums on any subject if they are to bind the population to a decision.

funk de fino said:
You have yet to say why there should be a limit for turn out? If people do not turn out, they lose their say. Same as an election or any other free vote.

You are also making crap up. I have not said 3 is too low. I havent seen anyone else say that either. That's dishonest. If only 3 turn out then that is the way it will be. No-one is stopping anyone from turning out.
Click to expand...

OK then I misunderstood your point - you are happy with any turnout and the country being bound by that. Thanks for making that clear.
 
martu said:
No but they have one thing in common - they are full of people that want the same things. Plus we have found out that by co-operating with other people some of which, shock horror!, come from different parts of the globe we can achieve great things.

When you want to put away your immature notions of nationality, a notion grounded on arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by the nastiest bugger who had the biggest sword, let the rest of us know. Maybe we can fix this planet.
Click to expand...


Who is this "we" of which you speak?

It may have escaped your attention, but one-world government isn't on the cards any time soon. There are advantages to being a nation-state which mere regions do not enjoy, some of which I touched on in an earlier post.

Why not bend your efforts to persuading the present nation-states to surrender that status, instead of insulting and denigrating a small, peaceful country that merely aspires to that status?

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom