FREEDOM!!!! [3]

But Lance, polls in Scotland show a majority wish to remain in the EU and to have the Human Rights Act- if we say No to independence we will in all likelihood get taken out of Europe against our wishes by a right wing immigrant hating Tory/UKIP led England- how is that self determination or making a choice? Its not democracy.

And Scotland wants to increase its immigration not decrease it. We have entirely different priorities to England on this topic in particular.


Blue- yeah I bet he has regretted saying that since! What a shock- Cameron letting slip the truth!

Blue - I dont think anyone says that scotland couldnt be successful, but I am not sure that anything the yes campaign have put forward suggests it would be better than what they have now. Both sides are just making shit up to suit their arguement... that is the nature of influencing people... tell them what you want them to hear and ignore the rest.

It is exactly democracy. We vote as 1 union. Cornwall doesny get to choose whether it is in or out on its own because it is part of the U.K. That is the democracy. What would an independent scotland say if 90% of Edinburgh voters said no? Would they let them stay in the U.K? If not why? That isn't very democratic is it? Or does it only apply to those getting what they want?

Lancebloke wrote:And Eldo.... that is not really accurate either. We want to withdraw because the European courts are fecking idiots who seem to place more value on the rights of criminals than victims.

I found the hyperbolic claims in the image to be ridiculous and offensive, not the idea of withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (which I don't know enough about to have an opinion on, although I tend to be concerned for the rights of the accused).

By the way, I am not a right wing, immigrant hating independent but I think that a lot of european laws are ridiculous and badly thought out. That said... I think we should be working to fix them rather than pull out.

Lancebloke wrote:It is exactly democracy. We vote as 1 union. Cornwall doesny get to choose whether it is in or out on its own because it is part of the U.K. That is the democracy. What would an independent scotland say if 90% of Edinburgh voters said no? Would they let them stay in the U.K? If not why? That isn't very democratic is it? Or does it only apply to those getting what they want?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this analogy since Edinburgh has not maintained a distinct legal, political, and religious identity (along with its own institutions to accompany all of these things) from the rest of Scotland for the past three centuries.

I am not sure that anything the yes campaign have put forward suggests it would be better than what they have now.- Lance

I really dont think Lance of most YES voters it has anything to do with being more successful- most folk I speak to seem to expect to be either a little bit worse off, or a little bit better off, but not much change really.
The change comes in the directing of the country, protecting things we value like free education and health care, free travel for the elderly. Getting the government we vote for under a PR system. Not being a military nuclear power. Taking better care of our poor and not punishing them for being poor.
These are ideological not monetary causes and are at the heart of peoples decision making.


'We vote as 1 union.'- Lance

And when that Union is unfairly balanced towards one view point, one side at the expense of the wishes of the other side its broken.

And what about afterwards Petty when you have your own minority? They will be treated exactly how you feel you are. The idea of that to my mind is the most ridiculous, hypocritical piece of this whole arguement. Scotland doesnt get what it wants, only the Yes voters do.

its a 50 50 split what about the no voters? dont half the population count? this is the most divisive thing to happen to Scotland for hundreds of years, its very sad.

No Figg, they dont matter. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not about democracy, it is about the Yes voter democracy.

Lancebloke wrote:And what about afterwards Petty when you have your own minority? They will be treated exactly how you feel you are. The idea of that to my mind is the most ridiculous, hypocritical piece of this whole arguement. Scotland doesnt get what it wants, only the Yes voters do.

By that train of thought, we might as well do away with the principle of national self-determination, since no nation is going to be 100% behind the idea of independence in any circumstance.

Lancebloke wrote:No Figg,  they dont matter. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not about democracy, it is about the Yes voter democracy.

In a democracy, the minority is supposed to go along with the majority when they lose an election or referendum (and there is always a loser, at least in any case with only two choices).  Personally I think independence referendums should require a supermajority, but that apparently wasn't part of the negotiations between Salmond and Cameron a couple years ago.

Democracy is, so far the best system we have for sorting out political matters. Its not perfect but name me a better system?

Therefore we have to use democracy when holding a referendum.
If its a NO vote I will accept that, thats democracy, thats how it goes.
And I will turn attention to helping fight for the promised devolution of powers instead.
If its a YES I would expect No voters to act the same way, accept the result and work together to making independnce work.

its 50/50

Mrs Figg wrote:its 50/50

Okay...? This referendum only requires 50% +1 votes to win.

If the majority is supposed to go with the minority, then why are we entertaining these arguements? The U.K. is the current recognised state and they voted for the Tories. What is all the moaning about?

I think independence referendums should require a supermajority, but that apparently wasn't part of the negotiations between Salmond and Cameron a couple years ago.- Eldo

This goes back to the first devolution vote in the late 1970's.
Westminster set the target so high it was impossible to reach and would have required a greater turnout than at any other point in history.
As it was almost 70% voted for devolution but we never got it as it still did not meet the threshold.
That created a lot of bad blood, especially as voters were promised various new powers for Scotland instead if we voted NO- we never got any of them, not a single one, turned out to be empty promises and lies. instead we got 18 years of Thatcher, leading to even more bad blood and the effective end of the Scottish Conservative Party.

Cameron I suspect did not want to risk reminding folk of that 70's rigged election.

Lancebloke wrote:If the majority is supposed to go with the minority, then why are we entertaining these arguements?  The U.K. is the current recognised state and they voted for the Tories. What is all the moaning about?

Come on Lance, I think you're being disingenuous. The UK is a somewhat unusual state (at least within the context of Europe) because it isn't a nation-state, but rather a state comprised of four distinct nations (with even Wales being legally as well as culturally distinct now). There are numerous precedents of national groups that were a minority within a larger state working for independence for themselves (which obviously doesn't mean that every single member of that group was on board with the plan). The Scottish nationalists have conducted a very reasonable campaign on the whole, with very little in the way of ethnic nationalism (just look at Quebec in the '90s to see the flip side of this), and of course no violence, which seems to go without saying in this context, but is unusual globally.

The U.K. is the current recognised state and they voted for the Tories. What is all the moaning about?- Lance

The key words here are UK- United Kingdom. We are not one state, we are a collection of countries working together. And if one country seems to have all the say over another there is a problem.

And what Eldo said.

Also Scottish people are rather nice on the whole.

You mean the U.K is a union because of agreements rather than conquest or because someone at some point drew some borders? Not sure that gives them any more right than catalonia or the bloody kingdom of wessex to create their own, convenient majority to suit their own needs.

We are a nation who joined a Union, but we kept our own legal systems, our own laws, we retained national identity within an agreement.
Now we are simply considering withdrawing from that agreement.

Lancebloke wrote:You mean the U.K is a union because of agreements rather than conquest or because someone at some point drew some borders? Not sure that gives them any more right than catalonia or the bloody kingdom of wessex to create their own, convenient majority to suit their own needs.

I feel like you're denying the fact that through both history and current constitutional arrangement, Scotland is a nation. It's not like the pro-independence coalition shares any ideology other than wanting independence for Scotland, so the idea that they are creating a "convenient majority to suit their own needs" is absurd. It's quite likely that the SNP will collapse or break apart once its main reason for existing is no longer there, because the party is already a very awkward alliance. In any event, it is widely recognized (though of course inconsistently applied by everyone) that nations have a right to determine their own political arrangements, including whether or not to form their own state or be part of another.

Also, while it's only tangentially related to this thread, I'm curious if your apparent antipathy towards self-determination extends to cases with broad international approval like Kosovo or South Sudan.

I'm not sure there's any binding international rules as for to countries becoming independent, other than those agreements made betwen the parties that leads up to eventual independence. Often the solution where international law gives no answers is the one that is accepted. Just look at the Crimea, though that's certainly not an example to follow.

And in the case of Scotland Westminister 1. Allowed the vote. 2. Refused other options, such as partial devolution.

Bluebottle wrote:I'm not sure there's any binding international rules as for to countries becoming independent, other than those agreements made betwen the parties that leads up to eventual independence. Often the solution where international law gives no answers is the one that is accepted. Just look at the Crimea, though that's certainly not an example to follow.

Well yeah, most countries support the idea of secession in some cases and deplore it in others.  There are no hard and fast rules in international law, and this area is a particularly murky one.  But the idea that the Scottish nationalists are just making these ideas up isn't accurate either.

And in the case of Scotland Westminister 1. Allowed the vote. 2. Refused other options, such as partial devolution.

Good point.  I find it interesting that Catalonia was brought up in this thread when the UK government has already distinguished itself from the Spanish government by allowing this referendum to happen in the first place.  That is to the credit of Cameron and his ministry, whatever else I may say about him.