An Independent Scotland?

It doesn't matter what anyone knows about if I can be bothered or not, yourself included!

I haven't voted since the expenses scandal and I've seen nothing that makes me want to start again. If every MP who had to return money had faced criminal charges then I would not have stopped voting. They didn't, they should have, because however you dress it up if that was an ordinary member of the public some form of legal action would have resulted.

There, that's definitely clear :mad:
 
I agree with you, there needs to be far more accountability with politicians, councillors, health care directors etc and fully understand how faith can be lost.
 
Indeed, folk all over the UK complaining about high taxes, high fuel prices, corrupt politicians, I wonder how many of them didn't want to waste their time voting?
 
Steep said:
Indeed, folk all over the UK complaining about high taxes, high fuel prices, corrupt politicians, I wonder how many of them didn't want to waste their time voting?
Click to expand...
Fair point. Some might say that, if you choose not to vote, then you can't complain about whatever government you get.
 
Gaz J said:
I don't vote and that's the choice I make because I am free to do it. I don't want to waste my time travelling to a polling station to spoil my paper or to do it by post even.

Not voting is my protest.
Click to expand...
Brilliant point. Surely the whole point of living in a democracy is that you can choose to vote or not to vote!
 
Of course you have the choice but how are things ever going to change for the better if you throw away the one thing that can change them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
They are not going to change for the better until the people who stand and ask for our support can satisfy the electorate that they are trustworthy. That they will conduct themselves in an appropriate manner and the leaders of their parties show some moral backbone and remove those that don't. Instead you see leaders defend these transgressors because they are all part of the same problem. MP's are public servants yet they see fit to behave in a manner that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the public if you and I were to behave in a similar way
 
"For the use of the term "democracy" as a system involving distribution of political power in the hands of the public which forms the electorate, representative government, and freedom of speech"

cambsno said:
Brilliant point. Surely the whole point of living in a democracy is that you can choose to vote or not to vote!
Click to expand...

I would classify that partial democracy because the representative Government cannot possibly represent the views of the people when there are so many variables which can be accredited to lack of votes.

As for freedom of speech, well there's certainly an awful lot of things we couldn't yell outside the Scottish Parliament or Westminster without being immediately arrested. It's even difficult to protest publically now as the police seem to have so much power to supress a crowd and arrest where required that it makes protesting through spoiling your paper one of the few methods left that may actually work and make them take notice?

What are people's views on the Government being able to make major policy changes etc without it going to vote? When I say major changes I'm talking about things which are either irreversible or would be very difficult/expensive to reverse such as going to war, immigration policies, privatisation etc. I appreciate the Government can't keep putting things to the vote otherwise nothing would get done, but surely when it's major stuff then wouldn't it be best to go to the public vote otherwise a party could really damage the country in the time they are in?
 
No reason why a constitution shouldn't have provisos like that. No going to war without a public vote, no selling off of public assets etc. Of course there's no way in hades that that's going to happen in any UK government so you'll just have to vote yes in September :D
 
Steep said:
No reason why a constitution shouldn't have provisos like that. No going to war without a public vote, no selling off of public assets etc. Of course there's no way in hades that that's going to happen in any UK government so you'll just have to vote yes in September :D
Click to expand...

But can you really trust the electorate? What about if the majority of people want the death penalty?

With going to war you often have to base decisions on secret info.
 
Steep said:
Of course you have the choice but how are things ever going to change for the better if you throw away the one thing that can change them?
Click to expand...

Because the 3 main parties are all as bad as each other. Unless the bnp or scargills socialists get in not much will change.

What gives me no confidence in any is the whip. For the majority of decisions the mp's are told how to vote. Might as well let a load of 10yo in the commons. Letting mp's vote how they want will be a start.
 
Steep said:
Of course you have the choice but how are things ever going to change for the better if you throw away the one thing that can change them?
Click to expand...

The other problem with not voting is that another voter, whom you may disagree with totally, gets "a free hit"
 
Tigger.ufo said:
So, go along and spoil your paper by writing "none of the above" across it.

......which is showing that you have bothered to turn up and vote, rather than the "can't be arsed" brigade.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the freedom to make the choice of not voting. The political parties should be asking the question "what do we need to do to engage with the voters and make them want to get out and vote". Bringing laws in to compel people to vote doesn't address the fundamental issue which is that people are disenchanted with the political system in this country and see no reason to vote.

The recent success of the UKIP party is down to the fact that they have touched a chord with some voters. Whether you agree with their politics is immaterial, they have presented them in such a way that has encouraged support for them.

What have the parties got to offer? Tories. Arrogant patronising and will always look down on the working class. David Cameron has absolutely no idea of how the real world lives. Labour. Lost their way completely. A leader with absolutely no charisma and no policies either. Lib Dem. A spent force. Have seen their election mandate diluted by the coalition to the point where you have to wonder are they a credible party anymore.

So where's the incentive to vote?
 
By spoiling your paper and showing them that you are not happy with the current parties, therefore encouraging new parties to form who may be to your liking. Simply not doing anything and hoping it will change will never work.

I do agree that it's not the only way. Finding ways to encourage people to vote would be the ideal solution but obviously a huge challenge, although UKIP have proven that this is possible.

You'll still get the lazy ones who just don't care about anything beyond the few streets that surround them but if it's a tiny minority then I guess that would be acceptable?
 
Spoiling isn't a clear message. As I suggested earlier maybe an option on the paper for no choice, or none of the above, at least that way there'd be no doubt.
 
So what do you interpret spoiling to be?
 
Spoiling could be said to be accidental by anyone who wanted to twist the fact (think politician defending their 'win'), putting a cross in the box that says I don't like any of the choices can't.
 
Lol you are arguing for the sake of it!
 
I'm trying to point out a potential flaw in your argument, not arguing for the sake of it. Moot point anyway as a 'no vote' option on a ballot paper is not in our near future.
 
I do not think they should make it law that you have to vote

I do think they should make it illegal for a person to deliberately spoil a vote though

And shock horror, something I agree with Hugh on is that there should be an option on the ballot paper that says "none of the above" or "No Vote" - This way you vote will at least count as a protest vote

At the moment, depending on how you spoilt your vote, it could end up be counted on the tally of someone you would never of wanted to vote for, this is because they keep all spoilt votes and if the result is to close to call the adjudicator will look at the spoilt votes and if thye think it is close to a vote for someone then they will award it to them
 
As in, oops I accidentally drew a line through the whole sheet? Lol

But I do agree an option for no vote would be a clear option unless this tick is scored out and a new tick put in another box! Would be a little more difficult to fraudulently correct a huge line through the whole sheet.
 
Something else that's struck me, this talk of ballot papers is old hat. Pretty soon elections will be electronic, vote from home, from your phone etc.
 
I'm sure it will be inevitable, although how secure against fraud it will be I don't know.

Anyway, let's move away from this as its deviating from the thread topic. Let's get back to taking about how bad independence will be for Scotland lol
 
gman said:
We are not talking about your local newsagent business. When you have over 5 million livelyhoods at stake you plan for the worst. Period. Anything less is incompetence and and total negligence.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that is simply not the case - in ANY walk of life. The UK is not planning for a mass invasion by Japan, or for the French to come storming across the channel. Because it is considered and judged unlikely. You consider all likelihoods, but you act on what is likely.

To act on everything would be negligence - you'd be bankrupt in no time, spending money on insanities.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
Please don't apply your theories to me. Nowhere have I said that I am advocating forcing people to vote.

I choose to go and spoil my paper, which conveys my dissatisfaction to all parties in a far better way than by not voting at all, whereas your "protest" not voting, is lost in the masses of "can't be arsed".
Click to expand...
If you are compelled to go along and spoil your paper, then you'll no longer have a choice, will you?

The state may choose to interpret no vote as "can't be arsed" - indeed I'm sure they will, as it serves their purpose better than to consider disenfranchisement. However compulsion has rarely been a positive way forward for societies - if a party can't be created that people want to vote for, forcing them to do so doesn't make it better.

Incidentally please also don't apply your theories to me - nowhere have I said that my decision not to vote is a protest.
 
gman said:
Anyway, let's move away from this as its deviating from the thread topic. Let's get back to taking about how Great independence will be for Scotland lol
Click to expand...



Fixed that for you :)
 
Moadib said:
Sorry, but that is simply not the case - in ANY walk of life. The UK is not planning for a mass invasion by Japan, or for the French to come storming across the channel. Because it is considered and judged unlikely. You consider all likelihoods, but you act on what is likely.
To act on everything would be negligence - you'd be bankrupt in no time, spending money on insanities.
Click to expand...

You are taking it to the extremes instead of being sensible. Even the Norwegian's (who Salmond keeps referring to) has a reasonably sized Navy including submarines, frigates and missile boats as do they have a decent army and air force. We've already had the Russians probing us but that aside you have to ensure adequate protection of your country because I'll stress it again, you never know what can happen around the corner and if maintaining a decent armed forces isn't practicable or financially viable then something like Trident is the ultimate alternative. Ukraine is a recent example, do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they had kept their nuclear weapons?


Moadib said:
Incidentally please also don't apply your theories to me - nowhere have I said that my decision not to vote is a protest.
Click to expand...

Well on that basis thank you for proving my point in that not showing up to vote doesn't necessarily mean it's a protest vote. Therefore this only strengthens the case that people should have to turn up so that we have a more accurate representation of how the public feel.
 
Graham we have had the Russians probing at us once a months or so since the 1950s, this is not news and they do it to try and check up on the whereabouts of the nukes. The Scandinavian countries have big navies because they were right next to the old USSR but they didn't buy everything all at once. My point is that we won't need huge armed forces on day one.
 
In 1993 Czechoslovakia split into two seperate countries. They shared the assets of the nation equably in ratio to the populations and even shared a currency for a short time. There's no reason why a similar split should not work for the UK.
Re the currency after the Czechoslovakia split, the union didn't last long but it did give some stability to both nations in the initial stages.
 
Gordon Brown has told Sky News an independent Scotland would be a "more unequal country", despite the SNP's claims to the contrary.

In an exclusive interview with Eamonn Holmes marking 100 days to go until the referendum vote, he warned of serious economic consequences if the country splits from the rest of the UK.

Asked by Holmes whether Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond had been telling "porky pies" about the true cost of independence, he replied: "I don't believe we're getting the full picture about what the consequences of independence are."

Given the cost of the Scottish Parliament building this is probably a very true reflection !
 
Sure, take financial advice from Gordon Brown, 4 years ago he was a pariah, no-one would have put him out if he was on fire. The only thing he sees is chance to get himself back into the limelight.
 
Nick, how do you manage to lay the blame for the cost of the Scottish parliament building at Alex Salmonds door?
 
If Scotland ends up with say 10% of the armed forces in equipment, what will happen to the crews of these planes ships etc. I don't know how many scots are in the armed forces but its reasonable to assume that there would be a shortfall in trained personnel for this equipment. Not every scot would want to transfer to the Scottish army if they have long service and you can't tell someone that he's now going to fight for a foreign country.
 
I agree that we don't need a huge force from day one but we need a reasonable one surely to protect our assets from various threats?

I just don't think a coast guard is enough, actually what yesScotland have outlined would be quite suitable!


As for Gordon Brown, the less said by him the better lol
 
Steep said:
Sure, take financial advice from Gordon Brown, 4 years ago he was a pariah, no-one would have put him out if he was on fire. The only thing he sees is chance to get himself back into the limelight.
Click to expand...
Ok I admit I am lurking never thought I would be agreeing with Steep but I would not trust Gordon Brown as far as I could throw him.(it is Scotland who elect him)

By the way I was delighted to see Alex on the Sunday Marr show a little better presenting his case even though the pole of 68% rUK not wanting a currency union was just a matter of the question asked and not true.
 
Gary you're right, iScotland wouldn't need more than 5% of the hardware and facilities (off the top of my head) the rest could be used as part of the bargaining that's bound to go on pre independence.
 
I would be happy for Scotland having about 8% of the hardware far better than you all telling terrorist invaders in a loud voice to go away

I see Alex would like about a 15k strong Scotland army so if you leave that would be a strong deterrent, that's a large recruitment campaign and help the young people out of not having a job. Do you know will he use conscription?
 
Of course not.

The Westminster parliamentary select commitee investigating the effects of independence on defence said Scotland would be due about 8.9% of the defence assets but that's actually a pretty huge amount. We wouldn't need that much by a long way and it would be a shame to waste it so the idea would be to say 'you' keep this but give us that.
 
Have you seen in the huff post they are polling will iscotland get good foreign investment I thought you would but 60odd percent said no

I would imagine Russia would find the low tax scheme Alex is proposing very tempting and with independent banking his funds should be secure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top