Alex Salmond and Independence

[Walrus]

Sure but there are still many important things that wouldn't be devolved. It would be less representative because most people in the UK would have voted for a party that has absolutely no say on matters affecting all of the UK.

And how would this head council work? Either you end up with Peter Robinson holding the same amount of power as David Cameron, which is mental and again wholly unrepresentative, or Cameron essentially has free reign. None of the leaders of the the other three countries would be in the position to fulfil the role that the leader of the opposition does.

Then there's the issue that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all use different voting systems for their own parliamentary elections.

Fair enough. Like I said I'm not an expert in coming up with political models. I just think England needs a devolved parliament akin to what the other nations have, rather than the central UK government also being England's only voice, causing the sort of anti-Westminster feeling that the other nations have.

A federal system with an overall UK government controlling nationwide affairs like Defense and foreign policy, seems like the best solution for all parties, to me.

 

[barros]

Well 46% of the 87% who turned out to vote - so mote like 40%
I think the biggest surprise for me was how few places actually had a majority in favour of independence
No doubt in 20 years or so they will be saying yes but the young voted for independence and now lots of the people who voted to stay are dead - Its a matter of time before they eventually go independent I feel - hopefully not too much time

And the young will change their minds, adults need to worry about jobs, bills and other things that's why I thought letting 16 and 17 year old kids to vote was stupid.

 

[Scrumpet]

Fair enough. Like I said I'm not an expert in coming up with political models. I just think England needs a devolved parliament akin to what the other nations have, rather than the central UK government also being England's only voice, causing the sort of anti-Westminster feeling that the other nations have.

A federal system with an overall UK government controlling nationwide affairs like Defense and foreign policy, seems like the best solution for all parties, to me.

Yeah I'm not against that, I'd just want all parties to still have a role to play in the non-devolved issues.

Although to be honest, I'm not thrilled about the prospect of more powers being transferred to Stormont.

 

[sun_tzu]

And the young will change their minds, adults need to worry about jobs, bills and other things that's why I thought letting 16 and 17 year old kids to vote was stupid.

I agree

I know some people say at 17 its crazy that you can drive a potentially lethal car and go and die for your country in a war but you cant vote or have a drink - I agree entirely and Id keep the age of voting and drinking at 18 and just put up the driving and armed forces entry age accordingly

 

[Mr Pigeon]

I agree

I know some people say at 17 its crazy that you can drive a potentially lethal car and go and die for your country in a war but you cant vote or have a drink - I agree entirely and Id keep the age of voting and drinking at 18 and just put up the driving and armed forces entry age accordingly

Everyone's first vote is usually a stupid one when they're young. For instance; my first vote went to the Lib Dems.

Case closed, your Honour.

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

I could fall in love with you. What size are you?

I'm only small

 

[ThierryHenry]

Most things have already been said on here (agree especially with what @Wolfboy just posted), but it's got to be pointed out that (again) Ed Miliband had a terrible campaign. Despite being the only of the 'Westminster 3' to stay in Scotland for the last week of the campaign I can remember nothing he said or did, no soundbites from any of his speeches and I barely remember the media covering him. He's just been completely inconsequential compared to the likes of Salmond, Darling, Cameron and Brown.

I still think Labour are most likely to win the next election, maybe even with a Lab-Lib coalition, but it feels like the party's been rudderless for so long now. There's a lot of talented people alongside the career politicians and PR spin doctors who could re-energise the party, it's depressing to see its current state. I'm increasingly aware of the prospect of Ed having to defend Britain's position in the EU at the next general election and completely failing, resulting in the UK 'losing' that referendum in 3 years time. Farage is going to gain more popularity from banging the English devolution drum for the next seven months too.

 

[Walrus]

Most things have already been said on here (agree especially with what @Wolfboy just posted), but it's got to be pointed out that (again) Ed Miliband had a terrible campaign. Despite being the only of the 'Westminster 3' to stay in Scotland for the last week of the campaign I can remember nothing he said or did, no soundbites from any of his speeches and I barely remember the media covering him. He's just been completely inconsequential compared to the likes of Salmond, Darling, Cameron and Brown.

I still think Labour are most likely to win the next election, maybe even with a Lab-Lib coalition, but it feels like the party's been rudderless for so long now. There's a lot of talented people alongside the career politicians and PR spin doctors who could re-energise the party, it's depressing to see its current state. I'm increasingly aware of the prospect of Ed having to defend Britain's position in the EU at the next general election and completely failing, resulting in the UK 'losing' that referendum in 3 years time. Farage is going to gain more popularity from banging the English devolution drum for the next seven months too.

That is a concern. I want to see devolved powers for England in a federal system like I described earlier, I am also pro-EU however, so I really don't want to see UKIP gaining any more power.

I hope that this political and constitutional reform is real and doesn't just become a load of politican standard BS.

 

[sun_tzu]

I still think Labour are most likely to win the next election, maybe even with a Lab-Lib coalition, but it feels like the party's been rudderless for so long now. There's a lot of talented people alongside the career politicians and PR spin doctors who could re-energise the party, it's depressing to see its current state. I'm increasingly aware of the prospect of Ed having to defend Britain's position in the EU at the next general election and completely failing, resulting in the UK 'losing' that referendum in 3 years time. Farage is going to gain more popularity from banging the English devolution drum for the next seven months too.

Possibly but with Cameron proposing a solution to the west lothian question as they call it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question )

There would seem a real possibility that a labour majority might not actually be able to raise taxes etc in England (or propose changes to the NHS or eduction) if they are reliant on scottish, and welsh MP's to secure their workable majority... its a clever move by cameron politically taking some of what would seem natural UKIP territory and at the same time putting labour in a tricky position as when asked to vote on regional powers the north east gave a resounding "we couldt care less" so its hard to see a viable alternative for them to propose and standing against it will be unpopular - much as dont like cameron think he has played his hand well on this occasion

 

[marukomu]

I'm only small

Oh, dear. My wife is small, too. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[Jippy]

Possibly but with Cameron proposing a solution to the west lothian question as they call it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question )

There would seem a real possibility that a labour majority might not actually be able to raise taxes etc in England (or propose changes to the NHS or eduction) if they are reliant on scottish, and welsh MP's to secure their workable majority... its a clever move by cameron politically taking some of what would seem natural UKIP territory and at the same time putting labour in a tricky position as when asked to vote on regional powers the north east gave a resounding "we couldt care less" so its hard to see a viable alternative for them to propose and standing against it will be unpopular - much as dont like cameron think he has played his hand well on this occasion

It may have been a smart move by Cameron but am sure most people find it galling that Scottish MPs could vote to hike up university fees in England, while north of the border they are free, for example. Not sure how long the tide of support UKIP has will last, but at least it should make a Labour majority more difficult to achieve.
Realistically though, it might not happen because it could be somewhat farcical if the Scottish and Welsh MPs are booted out of the Commons while they do an English issue vote, then let back in for a wider UK issue. Would undermine Westminster too much as a whole I think.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

It may have been a smart move by Cameron but am sure most people find it galling that Scottish MPs could vote to hike up university fees in England, while north of the border they are free, for example. Not sure how long the tide of support UKIP has will last, but at least it should make a Labour majority more difficult to achieve.
Realistically though, it might not happen because it could be somewhat farcical if the Scottish and Welsh MPs are booted out of the Commons while they do an English issue vote, then let back in for a wider UK issue. Would undermine Westminster too much as a whole I think.

Politicians should not be able to vote on matters that don't affect their constituents, it's as simple as that. There's been a distinct lack of pressure to do anything about it for years and if this referendum has achieved one thing only it's to sound the beginning of a change in British politics towards a more federal system. Hopefully for the better.

I actually ended up voting Yes yesterday, but it was always a cautious vote for me. Ultimately I could have gone either way and my vote was always in relation to better representation. It looks like our (Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish) system is moving towards that finally.

 

[sun_tzu]

It may have been a smart move by Cameron but am sure most people find it galling that Scottish MPs could vote to hike up university fees in England, while north of the border they are free, for example. Not sure how long the tide of support UKIP has will last, but at least it should make a Labour majority more difficult to achieve.
Realistically though, it might not happen because it could be somewhat farcical if the Scottish and Welsh MPs are booted out of the Commons while they do an English issue vote, then let back in for a wider UK issue. Would undermine Westminster too much as a whole I think.

yes i think most people do find it galling which is why it will be so difficult if not impossible for labour to oppose a solution to end it.
I suppose good scheduling and a clear deffiition of what is an english only issue could resolve some of the farcical scenes you describe but it wont be easy to get a clean workable solution in the timeframe they propose.
I do worry a seperate uk only parliment might get hijacked by the edl type nationalist rubbish though so I hope they find a way to make the commons work

 

[Jippy]

It better happen. Politicians should not be able to vote on matters that don't affect their constituents, it's as simple as that. There's been a distinct lack of pressure to do anything about it for years and if this referendum has achieved one thing only it's to sound the beginning of a change in British politics towards a more federal system. Hopefully for the better.

Surely you mean country rather than constituents? I'm not sure what Labour appetite is for this though and didn't the LibDems want to water down Tory proposals on the issue? Might be a struggle to get a majority vote through, particularly given NI, Scottish and Welsh MPs would get to vote on it.

 

[Mr Pigeon]

Surely you mean country rather than constituents?

Yeah, you're right. Wrong choice of word on my part.

 

[Count Orduck]

Looks like he was...

Yeh, he's absolutely devastated. Made a post about "English cnuts" at 9am and then nothing since.

 

[rcoobc]

Exactly, that's why I was so dead against letting 16 and 17 year olds vote.

The biggest yes vote was in the 26-35 bracket wasn't it?

So much rubish in this thread..

 

[Count Orduck]

A more federal government (possibly even splitting England into two or three "regions" for the federal affairs) with an overall UK government for matters that affect everyone would be perfect, and should have been brought in decades and decades ago.

 

[RedSRM]

I agree

I know some people say at 17 its crazy that you can drive a potentially lethal car and go and die for your country in a war but you cant vote or have a drink - I agree entirely and Id keep the age of voting and drinking at 18 and just put up the driving and armed forces entry age accordingly

Agreed. Drives me nuts when people go on about giving 16 year-olds the vote. Awful idea, at that age most don't know what they believe, usually it's whatever is deemed to be cool at the time.

 

[rcoobc]

I agree

I know some people say at 17 its crazy that you can drive a potentially lethal car and go and die for your country in a war but you cant vote or have a drink - I agree entirely and Id keep the age of voting and drinking at 18 and just put up the driving and armed forces entry age accordingly

If 70 year olds who may not live to see the consequences of their actions get a vote, 16 year olds damn well should too.

Its a paradox of life that young people drive like they have no time to lose, old people drive like they have all the time in the world. Young people are confident, energetic and reckless. Old people are careful, slow and scared.

Frankly anyone who had a problem with 16 yest olds voting seems undemocratic to me.

 

[rcoobc]

Agreed. Drives me nuts when people go on about giving 16 year-olds the vote. Awful idea, at that age most don't know what they believe, usually it's whatever is deemed to be cool at the time.

100% bollocks

 

[Man Utd Mrs]

Oh, dear. My wife is small, too. I suppose I'll have to look elsewhere.

Yep, probably for the best. I dont want the items of clothing stretching.

 

[Scrumpet]

If 70 year olds who may not live to see the consequences of their actions get a vote, 16 year olds damn well should too.

Its a paradox of life that young people drive like they have no time to lose, old people drive like they have all the time in the world. Young people are confident, energetic and reckless. Old people are careful, slow and scared.

Frankly anyone who had a problem with 16 yest olds voting seems undemocratic to me.

Did you mean to quote me, robo?

 

[Ducklegs]

Possibly but with Cameron proposing a solution to the west lothian question as they call it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question )

There would seem a real possibility that a labour majority might not actually be able to raise taxes etc in England (or propose changes to the NHS or eduction) if they are reliant on scottish, and welsh MP's to secure their workable majority... its a clever move by cameron politically taking some of what would seem natural UKIP territory and at the same time putting labour in a tricky position as when asked to vote on regional powers the north east gave a resounding "we couldt care less" so its hard to see a viable alternative for them to propose and standing against it will be unpopular - much as dont like cameron think he has played his hand well on this occasion

Labour have not got a hope of winning the next election.

You can disregard local, regional, and EU elections as a guide line, Labour are still Toxic and will remain so for at least the next generation.

 

[rcoobc]

Did you mean to quote me, robo?

Nope!

 

[Adebesi]

Not sure how long the tide of support UKIP has will last, but at least it should make a Labour majority more difficult to achieve.

Debatable. Isnt it just as likely UKIP will split the right and pave the way for a Labour majority?

 

[rcoobc]

16 year olds deserved to be represented. Sure they might not have as much of a clue about mortgages as they will when they are 30. Sure they may not have lived through 60 years of history. But 60 year olds don't know what its like to be at school these days, they don't know Joe the morern internet world works, they don't know about cyber bullying or e-sex or the modern world in general.

Denying 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds the vote because they "are reckless" but allowing 10 million over 70s the vote, who will have far less of a clue about what's going on in the modern world and will get most of the news from the daily mail.. Is a joke.

I don't care if the voting age is 16 or 17 or 18. It makes no difference, any is fine. But don't start this shite that 16 year olds can't have a proper opinion, of course they can. In some subjects they are BEST placed to have an opinion. I had the same opinions at 16 as I do now. If you think that all 16 year olds follow the herd, that's an indictment on either yourself at 16, your children, or your lack of knowledge

 

[NoWinNoFee]

Just looking at comments on the Facebook ‘no campaign’ group:-

https://www.facebook.com/VoteNo2014

It’s great seeing Scots proud to be British, I always thought the majority of Scots wasn’t and actually a ‘no’ vote was more about what’s really best for Scotland more so than national pride, but seems I was wrong and I think that’s great and makes me even prouder to be British.

 

[rcoobc]

Labour have not got a hope of winning the next election.

You can disregard local, regional, and EU elections as a guide line, Labour are still Toxic and will remain so for at least the next generation.

If the vote was tomorrow they would have a majority.....

 

[RedSRM]

100% bollocks

In your opinion.
Personally I don't understand why anyone would be so desperate for 16 year-olds to have the vote. What's to be gained? (apart from certain parties thinking it could give them an advantage). I think many adults looking back to when they were 16 would say that in hindsight they knew feck all at that stage. (Not that that would go for you of course).

 

[sun_tzu]

Debatable. Isnt it just as likely UKIP will split the right and pave the way for a Labour majority?

more likley I think - afterall their natural base who currently vote would seem to be more likley in the majority of circumstances to currently vote conservative (who they now see as not right wing enough) a opposed to being natural liberal / labour voters who all of a sudden want to swith completly to the opposite side of the spectrum.

There will also be a % who are completely disenfranchised with the whole system but one suspects a lot of these people didnt vote anyway if they didnt believe in any of the ideologies or people previously. If they took just 10% of conservative vote accross the board I wonder how many seats the the first past the post system we have the conservatives would loose based on last time? - I suspect quite a few

 

[Adebesi]

Labour have not got a hope of winning the next election.

You can disregard local, regional, and EU elections as a guide line, Labour are still Toxic and will remain so for at least the next generation.

It still really baffles me why Labour never did more to point out that a) before the financial crisis the Tories said absolutely nothing about Labour overspending, and in fact pledged to match Labour spending plans and b) the massive budget deficit is more the result of bailing out the banks (which the Tories would have done with even more gusto than Labour did) than some kind of welfare binge. And to the extent it is the result of welfare, it is principally about pensions, not immigrants or benefit scroungers.

So if Labour are toxic that is more down to a misunderstanding that Labour have for some reason allowed the Tories to peddle, than any kind of reality. Its fair to point out that is a double edged sword though: Labour dont deserve the blame for the financial crisis but neither does Brown deserve the credit he has often claimed for being chancellor during an unprecedented global bull market. Even a monkey acting as chancellor during that time would have presided over a fairly strong UK economy.

What you can say is that the UK economy is now in much better shape than much of Europe and Cameron should be able to claim a lot of the credit for that, and say Labour's plan for more gradual cuts would not have delivered the same turnaround. That should be where the argument is.

 

[RedSRM]

16 year olds deserved to be represented. Sure they might not have as much of a clue about mortgages as they will when they are 30. Sure they may not have lived through 60 years of history. But 60 year olds don't know what its like to be at school these days, they don't know Joe the morern internet world works, they don't know about cyber bullying or e-sex or the modern world in general.

Denying 1.6 million 16 and 17 year olds the vote because they "are reckless" but allowing 10 million over 70s the vote, who will have far less of a clue about what's going on in the modern world and will get most of the news from the daily mail.. Is a joke.

I don't care if the voting age is 16 or 17 or 18. It makes no difference, any is fine. But don't start this shite that 16 year olds can't have a proper opinion, of course they can. In some subjects they are BEST placed to have an opinion. I had the same opinions at 16 as I do now. If you think that all 16 year olds follow the herd, that's an indictment on either yourself at 16, your children, or your lack of knowledge

So we can't generalise about those poor young people but it's fine to disregard the elderly as a bunch mindless cretins? Okay.

 

[Marching]

Convincing victory for the YES campaign.

 

[rcoobc]

In your opinion.
Personally I don't understand why anyone would be so desperate for 16 year-olds to have the vote. What's to be gained? (apart from certain parties thinking it could give them an advantage). I think many adults looking back to when they were 16 would say that in hindsight they knew feck all at that stage. (Not that that would go for you of course).

What's to be lost?

Gained:

1) Lowers the average age of voters, which IMO is a good thing. (Older people are more likely to vote)
2) Broadens the demographic of voters and increases the "wisdom of the crowd" In a jury for example, it is said to work best when you get a good demographic mix; young and old, rich and poor, black and white and Asian.
3) gives the young a chance to be heard. If there is a massive problem in schools, they are best placed to let us know.
4) reduces the 'problem' of having a large elderly voting segment who don't have their "finger on the pulse"
5) making the vote interesting to school kids will make them more likely they vote in future

Lost:

1) they don't have a clue what's going on, will just vote with their mates, (rubbish IMO)

 

[rcoobc]

So we can't generalise about those poor young people but it's fine to disregard the elderly as a bunch mindless cretins? Okay.

That is my point, pretty much.

But if someone has spent 10 years in a nursing home, are they really going to have a worse idea than a 16 year old?

 

[Mr Pigeon]

That is my point, pretty much.

But if someone has spent 10 years in a nursing home, are they really going to have a worse idea than a 16 year old?

I find this funny because yesterday my gran had to remind me where I had left my car keys. She's 90.

I agree with you, by the way. 16-17 year olds had every right to be involved in this referendum.

 

[RedSRM]

What's to be lost?

Gained:

1) Lowers the average age of voters, which IMO is a good thing. (Older people are more likely to vote)
2) Broadens the demographic of voters and increases the "wisdom of the crowd" In a jury for example, it is said to work best when you get a good demographic mix; young and old, rich and poor, black and white and Asian.
3) gives the young a chance to be heard. If there is a massive problem in schools, they are best placed to let us know.
4) reduces the 'problem' of having a large elderly voting segment who don't have their "finger on the pulse"
5) making the vote interesting to school kids will make them more likely they vote in future

Lost:

1) they don't have a clue what's going on, will just vote with their mates, (rubbish IMO)

As you say, the older crowd are more likely to vote. So lowering the voting age would probably not make too much difference as the turn out wouldn't be that high anyway.

 

[Wolfboy]

They are at the mercy of the English people on that one.

True but with independence they would have bee at the mercy of all the European countries including the likes of Spain who would have too much to lose to just let them back in. But balls to all that, would have could have should have. That boat has sailed.

One of the things I really hope is that this referendum will awaken an interest in politics in England and we take enough of an interest in Europe to know we should stay in. I really hope the engagement we've seen in Scotland is a bad sign for UKIP, because all you have to do is take and interest and think through the bile that they vomit into the public domain and you see that they are full of shit.

 

[rcoobc]

As you say, the older crowd are more likely to vote. So lowering the voting age would probably not make too much difference as the turn out wouldn't be that high anyway.

Why would the turn out of 16 and 17 year olds not be high? I cant prove this, but I think it would be higher than 19-25 year olds.

It would be their first chance to vote, they would discuss it in School and possibly be excited. I think the turn out for 16 year olds would be very high, especially in a General Election.

Using this and this we could work out the average voting age.