Yes or No and no bullsh*t

[french frank]

So I cling to that small hope if the worst happens next week ... with admittedly more 'cling' than 'hope'.

"A YouGov poll finds 52% plan to vote No and 48% Yes, on a day when several heavyweights express concerns about independence."

http://news.sky.com/story/1334372/ne...-scotland-vote (5.48am)

The whole mess lies in the fact that the difference is so narrow, whether Yes or No.

[Dave2002]

Cue another Paul Ormerod book - Positive Linking - about how people make decisions today. As it says in the blurb on the back,

There's a great chapter on "Unintended consequences", of which one suspects there will be rather a lot, in this case. Makes a great deal of sense of the modern world, does Paul Ormerod.

We are increasingly aware of the choices, decisdions, behaviours and opinions of other people. Network effects - the fact that a person can and often does decide to change his or her behaviour simply on the basis of copying what others do - pervade the modern world

The sheep strategy for decision making is always a good one - eh? :smiley: ha ha ha : laugh:

[Anna]

I would have thought the NI Orangemen marching with bands and Nigel Farage turning up would have pushed the 'don't knows' into the Yes camp!

[jean]

...the NI Orangemen marching with bands...

That really was hilarious - especially the banners saying No Popery!

[MrGongGong]

That really was hilarious - especially the banners saying No Popery!

What's wrong with dried things that make your room smell nice ?

[ahinton]

What's wrong with dried things that make your room smell nice ?

!!! There speaks a man with catholic tastes!...

[Stillhomewardbound]

Just who exactly knocked out the terms of tomorrow's referendum. I'm asking because given that the consequence of a YES vote could have such seismic repercussions, is it really a move that is acceptable merely on the basis of a 50% plus 1 vote majority? That's how we play it in our general elections (actually, it's not, but you know what I'm getting at), fair enough, but electoral decisions can be reversed five years later. This referendum if it tilts to independence is really a bit forever. Surely, this is a poll which ought to have been subjected to a 60 or 65% majority and from where was it decided that the 16/17 years old are not adult enough to choose a government but apparently adult enough to make a call on secession. I'm all for self-determination but potentially 300 hundred years of union can be undone by virtue of a single vote and to me that is an electoral process wholly deficient in adequate stress testing.

[P. G. Tipps]

Just who exactly knocked out the terms of tomorrow's referendum. I'm asking because given that the consequence of a YES vote could have such seismic repercussions, is it really a move that is acceptable merely on the basis of a 50% plus 1 vote majority? That's how we play it in our general elections (actually, it's not, but you know what I'm getting at), fair enough, but electoral decisions can be reversed five years later. This referendum if it tilts to independence is really a bit forever. Surely, this is a poll which ought to have been subjected to a 60 or 65% majority and from where was it decided that the 16/17 years old are not adult enough to choose a government but apparently adult enough to make a call on secession. I'm all for self-determination but potentially 300 hundred years of union can be undone by virtue of a single vote and to me that is an electoral process wholly deficient in adequate stress testing.

I din't think the answer to that is in much doubt.

The Prime Minister of the UK, Mr David Cameron, insisted that what the Scottish people have always wanted by huge majorities (Home Rule/Devo Max) was not to be on the ballot paper in the agreed referendum. He thought that the Scottish voters, given a straight choice between the status quo and complete 'independence', would choose the former and everything could then just go as before. He completely underestimated the ability of the nationalist flavour of Scottish opinion ( a measure of which is in every Scot) to unite against the common enemy ... Westminster Ignorance & Arrogance. To be fair, up until now, so did quite a few Scots not least myself! Salmond & Co have brilliantly managed to exploit the discontent from previously squabbling sections of Scottish society, for the single purpose of attaining their political dream.

However, Cameron deliberately used this referendum for his own narrow interests, not those of the people of Scotland, and he hopes to do the same with the people of the UK over the EU with equally catastrophic possibilities.

Whilst one hopes and prays a majority of Scots will put anger and wholesale disillusionment with the Union set-up to one side and vote NO, this is by no means certain as many now seem to be prepared to vote with emotion rather than reason. This includes a number of my own siblings north of the border.

All this would have been avoided if the most popular option (by a huge majority according to polls) had been on the ballot paper, and the Nationalists were quite prepared for this to be the case. The Union would have been as safe as houses and the Nationalists may even have come a poor third in such a ballot.

So Cameron & Co are wholly responsible for the resultant chaos, nobody else, and as a famous Scot himself once earthily put it, it's now 'Squeaky Bum Time' for the rest of us!

[Beef Oven!]

Just who exactly knocked out the terms of tomorrow's referendum. I'm asking because given that the consequence of a YES vote could have such seismic repercussions, is it really a move that is acceptable merely on the basis of a 50% plus 1 vote majority? That's how we play it in our general elections (actually, it's not, but you know what I'm getting at), fair enough, but electoral decisions can be reversed five years later. This referendum if it tilts to independence is really a bit forever. Surely, this is a poll which ought to have been subjected to a 60 or 65% majority and from where was it decided that the 16/17 years old are not adult enough to choose a government but apparently adult enough to make a call on secession. I'm all for self-determination but potentially 300 hundred years of union can be undone by virtue of a single vote and to me that is an electoral process wholly deficient in adequate stress testing.

Wait for the forthcoming referendum in England, when we're asked whether we want the United Kingdom to be reduced in size by hiving off Scotland.

If that returns a 'no', then the whole matter is dead in the water anyway.

[P. G. Tipps]

The BBC explain to Scottish voters how to find their nearest polling booth and how to put their cross on a blank piece of paper ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29224999

I wonder if it will work ... ? <smiley)

[MrGongGong]

Wait for the forthcoming referendum in England, when we're asked whether we want the United Kingdom to be reduced in size by hiving off Scotland.

If that returns a 'no', then the whole matter is dead in the water anyway.

Can't we "hive off" the Southeast of England instead ?

[ahinton]

Can't we "hive off" the Southeast of England instead ?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if that eventually happens but I doubt that the formation of the Democratic Republic of Londonistan - or, indeed, any other federalist fragmentation of England - would likely occur until and unless Wales has also quite the union and there seems less appetite for that than in Scotland or even than there once seemed to be in Wales itself.

[JimD]

All this would have been avoided if the most popular option (by a huge majority according to polls) had been on the ballot paper, and the Nationalists were quite prepared for this to be the case. !

Does this imply that you think the nationalists (i.e. Alex Salmond) didn't want/didn't seriously think they had a chance of getting a majority for full independence, since the inclusion of a third option would clearly have worked against it? This has always puzzled me.

[ahinton]

The Prime Minister of the UK, Mr David Cameron, insisted that what the Scottish people have always wanted by huge majorities (Home Rule/Devo Max) was not to be on the ballot paper in the agreed referendum.

I thin kthat this is probably right; that said, at least he has given the electorate in Scotland (not "the Scottish people", please note - many non-Scots residents of Soctland are entitled to vote and no Scots who aren't resident there can do so) the decision to make, which is the very opposite of what the Madrid government has done for Catalunya.

He thought that the Scottish voters, given a straight choice between the status quo and complete 'independence', would choose the former and everything could then just go as before. He completely underestimated the ability of the nationalist flavour of Scottish opinion ( a measure of which is in every Scot) to unite against the common enemy ... Westminster Ignorance & Arrogance. To be fair, up until now, so did quite a few Scots not least myself! Salmond & Co have brilliantly managed to exploit the discontent from previously squabbling sections of Scottish society, for the single purpose of attaining their political dream.

Did David Cameron really think that the majority would choose "No"? He might have done, I suppose yet, if indeed he did, it seems a strange conclusion on the part of for the leader of a major British poarty with almost no representation there. Furthermore, "Westminster Ignorance and Arrogance" is hardly the common enemy of Scots alone, or even of the Scottish population as a whole!

However, Cameron deliberately used this referendum for his own narrow interests, not those of the people of Scotland, and he hopes to do the same with the people of the UK over the EU with equally catastrophic possibilities.

Again, he might have done, but what particular narrow personal interests do you think he believed/s would be served by the holding of such a referendum whichever way it goes? What you write on this would be clearer if you identifed them. Again, it's unclear what narrow personal interests he might have in respect of the referendum of the continued membership or otherwise of UK or what's left of it should Scotland vote "Yes" today so, again, your point would be more understandable were you to clarify this.

Whilst one hopes and prays a majority of Scots will put anger and wholesale disillusionment with the Union set-up to one side and vote NO, this is by no means certain as many now seem to be prepared to vote with emotion rather than reason. This includes a number of my own siblings north of the border.

"One hopes"? You presumably mean "I hope"! The point that you miss here is that it's not merely "wholesale disillusionment with the Union set-up", it's profound distrust of Westminster and, whilst the electorate of Scotland self-evidently by no means a monopoly on this, the fact remains that Westminster has far less support from that electorate than it does from any of the other three member states and this has been the case for quite some time. Whether there is a "Yes" or a "No" outcome will make no difference to the fact that the Conservative Party in Westminster will continue to attract the support of no more than a tiny minority of the electorate in Scotland.

All this would have been avoided if the most popular option (by a huge majority according to polls) had been on the ballot paper, and the Nationalists were quite prepared for this to be the case. The Union would have been as safe as houses and the Nationalists may even have come a poor third in such a ballot.

I have no idea on what grounds you conclude this, especially since Devo-Max would likely have given - and in the even of a "no" vote might yet still ultimately give - a substantial proportion of the electorate of Scotland a greater appetite for fuol independence than they have now.

So Cameron & Co are wholly responsible for the resultant chaos, nobody else, and as a famous Scot himself once earthily put it, it's now 'Squeaky Bum Time' for the rest of us!

Cameron himself is of Scots origin. The "resultant chaos" of which you write is real enough, but it's not the outcome of anything to which you seek to attribute it. The real chaos and confusion is in a government with almost no support in Scotland giving the Scottish electorate the opportunity to decide to secede from the union should it so desire without first establishing beyond doubt what a post-"independence" Scotland will have for a currency, what its rights and aspriations might be in respect of the retention or otherwise of the British monarchy, what its relationship will be with EU (including whether it will have to reapply for membership) and a host of other still anomalous and uncertain factors; add to these the fact that the predictions for the future of "Scottish" oil, so noisily talked up by "Yes" campaigners, are not only premature in advance of mutual agreement that North Sea reserves and those as yet unexploited to the west of the Shetlands and elsewhere become the property of an "independent" Scotland overnight but also because, should the quest for renewable energy gather sufficient pace over the next decade or two, the point might be reached at which ever more nations (even including Scotland itself) will have a decreasing requirement for that oil, be it "Scottish" or "British", to the grave detriment of the post-"independence" Scottish economy.

[Flosshilde]

Can't we "hive off" the Southeast of England instead ?

I read that as 'live off' - I think there are a few islands in the Thames estuary?