I thought we were discussing the right to be lazy and not have your time wasted?
Alex Salmond and Independence
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Frantically trying to dig up dirt on them? The more I think of it I find it quite harsh to give them the title of "No voters" when it'd be an insult to the rest of the country who voted No to lump them in with the hardcore loyalist/unionist idiots who tarnish the country.
That would be covered under freedom of expression or several others. In a free society, the side seeking to compel a citizen to do something against their will must provide the justification for it.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
Fair enough (regarding that video). The rest of the footage and press reports say enough. The one paper to come out and back a Yes vote has had these nuts set fire to a generator at the back of the building. Of course that's me frantically trying to dig dirt on them.
And where does paying for public schools come into that?
I agree with Mill fwiw. And it's nice to stick to an ideology, but at times it isn't practical. If a situation can be reached where a greater, more effective or fair government can be elected by a gentle coercion to take part (but not actually vote) then I'm all for trying it, or exploring it, regardless of whether it adheres stricly to the values of John Stuart Mill or not. Especially when we already wave those values when we deem fit.
At the least I'd need a worst case scenario.
The rest of the footage on that page is no worse than a tame football match. I don't really have a horse in this fight fwiw (I'm glad we haven't lost a big block of anti-Tory votes, but I wouldn't have begrudged you independence) these are pretty much the only posts I have in here. I'm just pointing out those vids are pretty rubbish in the controversy stakes.
Last edited:
Public schools could be a comparison. I think there is an point to be made that not having educated children is a real harm, but for the sake of argument let's take your point at face value. Let's say that being forced to vote and being forced to pay for public schools are both examples of government infringing on civil liberties. I'm not saying these rights are absolute. I am saying there needs to be a damn good reason to infringe on those rights. So in one situation, we have the education of our children and indirectly the future of the the republic. In the other situation we have...people voting from choices at random. Or in some cases not even that, other times they can just mark their ballot void. Since we agree that rights are being infringed upon, tell me what the good justification for that is in the voting case? I'll be you can make a much better case for public schools than mandatory voting.
It isn't a gentle coercion. A gentle coercion would be offering incentives to people who do vote, not punishing those who don't. And again, they aren't actually voting. They are just standing in line and doing no one any good.
I'm not sure what you mean by worst case scenario but I made up the supermarket example earlier. Should the government be able to create a law requiring all shoppers to spend 5 minutes in the produce aisle as gentle coercion to eat healthier?
And for the record, it IS practical. We have proof of that in all the other western democracies that don't have such laws. Is there any proof that a "greater, more effective or fair government" is elected by having laws forcing people to vote? Because if you want to infringe on civil liberties, you ought to have some proof.
Just seems unlikely that the commenters in this thread would react the same way were the results and flags reversed
And now the unionist mobs have set the Herald building partially alight. The Sunday Herald was the only newspaper in Scotland to support the movement for independence. No need to condemn that though cause they are the right kind of nationalist.
Last edited:
Brilliant result - very good turnout figures and Scotland has inspired the world. You could probably use this as evidence that there were "hidden" No voters, and maybe some felt intimidated by the vibrant, divisive nationalism on the Yes side although the turnout is also significant. Those of us who voted 'No' did not bottle it and are far from cowards - what we realised is that the SNP is not to be trusted. There was no coherent strategy for essential areas such as currency, national debt, EU membership, and defence. As for Salmond, he fought a good fight and even though I didn't agree with his ideas - his plan should be scrutinised in the months and years to come - it's refreshing to have a voice like his challenge the elite and establishment and have them panicking. He deserves lots of credit for making people care about their vote. This is hopefully the beginning of a new constitutional future for the UK.
Last edited by a moderator:
He's the same as the rest of them, imo.
English in Australia to be pedantic :-)
Ta! I read headlines on the beeb talking about how the Yes voters in Edinburgh were gutted and the No voters in Glasgow were partying. Again, not familiar with those cities was wondering, and you captured it.
Interesting... Not that I'm saying there is any doubt about the result
But it does raise interesting questions
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum
But it does raise interesting questions
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-referendum
No, it really doesn't, it's clearly utter bollocks.
I've said it before, IMO anyone who's major aim in life is to be a politician should, by default, be barred from ever holding a positiin of political power.
My point it given the rules it is clearly possible to argue the legality of virtually any vote
Really, any proof of that?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...police-in-glasgows-george-square-9745333.html
Looking for that article again has made me realise the severe lack of media coverage about the protest. The Beeb don't even make a mention to the nazi salutes being used as some of the crowd were singing. The Daily Mail have just posted an article that has photos of it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-separate-rival-groups-tension-increases.html
Last edited:
At no point have I tried to brand nationalists as violent. I haven't really commenting much on the violence and the likes that has taken place.
My comments were simply that by nature of the debate, I think the YES crowds would be more vocal and outspoken. I think this has been proven in the result by several areas ending up with far more NO votes than expected - this is the silent majority, the NO voters who were not out on the street campaigning, and therefore not really counted in the pre-referendum polls/opinion.
At no point have I claimed that there are no idiots on the NO side. Whether it is/was biased media coverage or reality however, there were far, far more reports of violence and intimidation from the YES side - I read a lot of articles on this referendum over the last couple of weeks and on practically every comments page there were numerous comments from ordinary people, saying they were scared to go outside or declare their allegiance to the NO side, for fear of being hurt, having their windows smashed etc.
The vote is over, I had some very good debate in this thread initially, however now it has just descended to petty pointscoring and accusations, which is a shame. This talk of "the right kind of nationalist" and all the inflammatory comments @Pink Moon makes is just turning the thread into a slinging match and removing all the actual discussion.
Last edited:
Sorry, the bit about violence was relating to Snake's post. I think... My body was running on pure caffeine at the time.
Again, where's the proof that there was Orange Order banners? I've yet to see a photograph or video that suggests there was any there.
I was basing it on the Indy article. If there's no video evidence then I retract it.
But every newspaper you read seeking to support the same position doesn't affect that at all? You're clearly still of the impression that one side was worse than the other when it came to such behaviour.
It's just sad how blatently obvious it is that you'd all be outraged if Yes supporters were stomping through streets burning flags, starting fights and attacking newspapers. There would probably be some people commenting about the nature of this new Scotland or the violent Yes movement showing its true colours. But because of how you have seen this from such a one sided perspective you just don't think about it. It doesn't reinforce what you already believe and the news sites you like aren't outraged so it probably didn't feel worth commenting on this time.
It's not point scoring or petty argument I'm asking you to look at what is happening, consider your response to it and think about if you still feel like you have approached this issue with a balanced outlook.
Last edited:
Orange walks to ebe held today in Glasgow as I hear. Really smart move by the city council to grant it.
Am I far off the mark if I say those thugs 'celebrating' No victory in Glasgow are in majority Rangers fans trying to cause some trouble and get a reaction from Yes voters?
And nazi salutes in front of the War memorial.. What to say..
Am I far off the mark if I say those thugs 'celebrating' No victory in Glasgow are in majority Rangers fans trying to cause some trouble and get a reaction from Yes voters?
And nazi salutes in front of the War memorial.. What to say..
Most probably, out of the few hundred that caused problems I'd say all were no voters, all were drunk, most were rangers fans and a handful were the national front/scottish defence league. The same lot that came to stand across the road shouting at every peaceful yes party in the square.
I have not claimed that the media is unbiased in all of this - simply that looking at the comments made by actual people of Scotland (rather than journalists) regularly reporting claims of bullying and intimidation (there are those words again...) by the YES voters.
Now let me be clear that I do not condone any sort of violence from either side. However I think it would be naive to say that it was completely unexpected that after the result, there would be some sort of conflict when the vote was so closely contested. Frankly it was inevitable. Again that does not make it excusable, but is anyone really surprised that in the aftermath of a vote on independence, there are a few thugs going around looking to start trouble?
In the buildup to the vote however, it is a different beast, in my opinion. This was being done by extremists as a deliberate attempt to sway or deter people from voting - this is a much bigger crime as it is not just violence but also trying to deny someone their right to vote.
You still believe something that just wasn't anything close to the reality on the ground so I guess ye can't be convinced. Fringe elements on both sides were out there in the build up too and this racist lot were consistently the most threatening but at each stage those looking in from outside have found it easier to label one group yes supporters and the ones actually physically attacking people as a 'a few thugs' or 'loyalists'.
It's a joke and when folk do this it just becomes clear where there head was this whole time - I can finally understand why they were so critical of a genuinely peaceful movement. They just didn't have a clue what was going on.
It's a joke and when folk do this it just becomes clear where there head was this whole time - I can finally understand why they were so critical of a genuinely peaceful movement. They just didn't have a clue what was going on.
My arguments in this thread have been almost exclusively about the economic and political ramifications of independence. The talk about violence has only cropped up in the last few days. Frankly I have seen more talk about it in the thread AFTER the vote, where it seems that some want to just try to sling as much dirt at the NO campaigners as possible.
Surely thats because the dead is done, the vote is cast, and all there is now to talk about is the violent prats now.. rather than "that some want to just try to sling as much dirt at the NO campaigners as possible"
Aye exactly. Wasn't important to me then, but now it should be seen as its a clear illustration of the bias that affected people previously because clearly the narrative they have been following until this point would be being jumped on now, had the yes campaign won and gone about trashing unionists and union supporting institutions.
Its not all doom and gloom here anyway with the measure of the achievement hitting home and thousands of people joining the SNP and Green Party within hours. 1.6 million people voted yes and will almost certainly be willing to again some day, with only a small number of yes voters over 65. By 2035 or 2040, whenever the next referendum comes, and it will come, Scotland should hopefully be more economically stable so those who felt that "it should be independent but its not the right time" would be in a different position. The 45% will become the 55% before long.
Its not all doom and gloom here anyway with the measure of the achievement hitting home and thousands of people joining the SNP and Green Party within hours. 1.6 million people voted yes and will almost certainly be willing to again some day, with only a small number of yes voters over 65. By 2035 or 2040, whenever the next referendum comes, and it will come, Scotland should hopefully be more economically stable so those who felt that "it should be independent but its not the right time" would be in a different position. The 45% will become the 55% before long.
Or, people tend to vote for these things when politically, economically and socially things are at their absolute worst... which they are now, as we crawl slowly out of the worst worldwide recession in fifty years.
In another forty years there's every chance everything will be much better, and the desire for independence will be much less prevalent. Especially if Scotland gets the devomax that it wants.
Pointing out that the young votes Yes and the old voted No isn't much use, either, because the old voted No because they were old. I imagine a lot of those young Yes voters will switch to No as they age, and be replaced by other young Yes voters.
In another forty years there's every chance everything will be much better, and the desire for independence will be much less prevalent. Especially if Scotland gets the devomax that it wants.
Pointing out that the young votes Yes and the old voted No isn't much use, either, because the old voted No because they were old. I imagine a lot of those young Yes voters will switch to No as they age, and be replaced by other young Yes voters.
To further elaborate, in the aftermath of the No vote, a lot of the Yes campaigners I know seem to be very disingenuous about the reasons for those that voted No. It's just that they're scared / old / ill-informed / selfish. There's no acceptance that lots of people may have voted No for solid, good reasons; that Yes lost the referendum, not because they were betrayed by selfish, stupid cowards, but because more than half of the country simply disagreed with them. There's this belligerent air of "well it's fine, all the morons who voted No will be dead in thirty years and we'll definitely win when we vote again".
There's very little graciousness. It's a genuine belief that Scotland should be independent, that anyone with a brain can see that, and in thirty years the truth will be known and Yes will win by a landslide.
There's very little graciousness. It's a genuine belief that Scotland should be independent, that anyone with a brain can see that, and in thirty years the truth will be known and Yes will win by a landslide.
Obviously its all speculation but I do expect another referendum now that 45% of the population not only sympathise with the SNP but actively tried to leave the union. The elderly didn't vote no because they were old, thats a bit insulting. In 25 years older people won't be stuck with only traditional media sources like they are today and won't have grown up in the post war years, where there was a genuine feeling of Britishness - the over 65s voted very differently from the rest of our society for good reasons, not just because they are old and scared. The main arguments that won over undecided voters on the independence issue were economic not political so the case was severely weakened by it taking place six years after a global financial crisis. Polling consistently showed people identified more as Scottish than British. But crucial to all of this is the Scottish Labour vote - if it falls drastically in 2015 and 2016 elections then I think we will have seen a real shift but we will wait and see - I would not be surprised if we just held our nose and voted for Ed
Also due to the mobilisation of activists in recent months there is now one huge advantage for the Common Weal/Independence movement - the hugely disporportionate number of activists now fighting for the left (in the SNP, Greens, SSP or SWP) with the ultimate goal of a referendum, compared to any other political cause in Scotland.
Also due to the mobilisation of activists in recent months there is now one huge advantage for the Common Weal/Independence movement - the hugely disporportionate number of activists now fighting for the left (in the SNP, Greens, SSP or SWP) with the ultimate goal of a referendum, compared to any other political cause in Scotland.
Last edited:
Can we talk about Salmond. Does anyone think it's a bit wrong that he is resigning? Did he have no aim other than independence? He's achieved so much, he is the leader of the currentScottish government, who are going to get more laws and more rights.
Maybe he is right though. Maybe someone else does need to have a go. Are Westminster going to treat him with respect? But will they his successor?
Maybe he is right though. Maybe someone else does need to have a go. Are Westminster going to treat him with respect? But will they his successor?
Seeing yourself as Scottish/British are not mutually exclusive. There was a distinct agreement that this referendum would be a one off - I wouldn't kid yourself that Scotland will automatically be granted a referendum (at the expense of UK taxpayers) every time the SNP get elected or whenever you fancy it. I would expect it to be at least 50 years before it's brought up again.
Either way, your talk of the global economy affecting the vote is glossing over one very large point - oil. Salmonds plans were already heavily criticised for being over reliant on oil figures which were themselves exaggerated. In 20 or 30 years time (or beyond), the oil will be gone (or no longer a major factor) - unless Scotland sees drastic, drastic economic change then I don't see how the prospect of an independent Scotland can be more viable than it is now in economic terms.
I don't like this sentiment that the Scots will just have another referendum whenever it's convenient. Again it comes back to the fact that Scotland is part of the UK, and these sorts of decisions affect far more than just Scotland itself. I feel a lot of the attitude expressed by some of the Scots is very self-important and at times selfish, in this respect.
@rcoobc re: Salmond I'm not sure. Was discussing this with the missus yesterday and she definitely thinks he shouldn't be resigning. Thing is, for me it comes back to the fact that for all the time he had to prepare for this referendum, he clearly lacked answers or a plan for the most important questions. To me, that shows that whilst he does an excellent job of galvanising and rallying Scotland under his banner, stirring nationalistic pride and pushing things to the wire; he is not someone I would want to have in charge of my country.
Either way, your talk of the global economy affecting the vote is glossing over one very large point - oil. Salmonds plans were already heavily criticised for being over reliant on oil figures which were themselves exaggerated. In 20 or 30 years time (or beyond), the oil will be gone (or no longer a major factor) - unless Scotland sees drastic, drastic economic change then I don't see how the prospect of an independent Scotland can be more viable than it is now in economic terms.
I don't like this sentiment that the Scots will just have another referendum whenever it's convenient. Again it comes back to the fact that Scotland is part of the UK, and these sorts of decisions affect far more than just Scotland itself. I feel a lot of the attitude expressed by some of the Scots is very self-important and at times selfish, in this respect.
@rcoobc re: Salmond I'm not sure. Was discussing this with the missus yesterday and she definitely thinks he shouldn't be resigning. Thing is, for me it comes back to the fact that for all the time he had to prepare for this referendum, he clearly lacked answers or a plan for the most important questions. To me, that shows that whilst he does an excellent job of galvanising and rallying Scotland under his banner, stirring nationalistic pride and pushing things to the wire; he is not someone I would want to have in charge of my country.
He's been in charge 20 years and has achieved a lot as First Minister beyond the independence question. Sturgeon was more effective on the campaign trail and maybe he recognises that - or at least that she would give the SNP a better chance of being re-elected in 2016.
After seeing post after post from some people who had no contribution to make other than doing the same thing throughout the campaign, informing us of minor incidents that involved only the Yes Campaign, I am pretty comfortable with this assumption
Last edited:
This thread gives you the impression that every single person who didn't agree with a Yes vote has the same stance and reaction to everything? Of course it doesn't, the majority of posters here wouldn't support escalation on either side.
Last edited:
Yeah okay, I shouldn't have said "you all" when I meant the people who had behaved that way throughout the campaign