Should Scotland gain independance?

[Davemcc]

I'm surprised that support for independence is as high as 52%. As a Canadian, Quebec separatism has been a dominant factor in federal politics throughout my adult life. As you recall, Canada is historically comprised of British colonies and territories, and French origin Quebec. Quebec has a different language, culture, legal system and various other significant differences from the rest of Canada. In the referenda that have been held, Quebecers have voted by the slimmest of margins to remain in Canada, like 49-51%.

England and Scotland certainly have much more in common with each other than Quebec and the rest of Canada. They have a much longer history together, common language and similar institutions, and while the cultures may be different, I can't believe that they are incompatible. Sometimes working for personal, civic or regional success is easier when working within the status quo as part of a larger overall whole rather than trying to branch off and be successful in isolation.

Having said all that, I believe that government exists for the benefit of and at the behest of the citizens. If the Scots choose independence, then I support their right to secede as I do with Quebec, although if Quebec secedes, it may well spell the end of Canada. Democratic principle must win out since no better system has evolved.

Since this discussion relates to questions of democraric principles, let me ask a different, yet related question, that might put the question of secession in a different light. What is the inherent value of Democracy?

 

[emmaco]

Grab the North Sea oil first.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Phew!

Well well well.

In what, for me, has been an amazingly interesting last few weeks I can honestly say that I am so very very pleased and happy to report, if you were not already aware, that Scotland has - by just a single seat - voted for the Scottish National Party (SNP).

This, however, wasn't the only ground breaking news. It seems that as many as 100,000 ballot papers were 'spoiled' and so had to be discounted. This, unfortunately, will probably ensure that the election will be remembered as much for the wrong reasons as the right. However, for the record, let me straighten out any reports you may have heard about the election chaos being due to 'complicated' and/or 'difficult' ballot papers. They were nothing of the sort.

If people had read the instructions, they would have found no difficulty in correctly filling out the forms. That as many as 100,000 votes may be discounted is indicative of nothing more than a lack of intelligence of that many members of the electorate. As you may have gathered, I am entirely unsympathetic about this debacle; if people don't take the time to read, understand and follow clear instructions on how to place your vote, then, quite frankly, they do not have the intelligence to make an informed judgement on who should run the country and therefore shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Anyway, back to business. The final results were as follows:

SNP 47
Labour 46
Liberal Democrats 16
Conservative 17
Green 2
Independant candidate 1

Due to Scotland's parlimentary system, it will always be quite difficult for any one party to have an overall majority. The parliament was deliberately set up this way. Although the SNP have the greatest number of seats, if they do not or are not able to attain a majority through the formation of a coalition government - as is the case at present with Labour and the Liberal Democrats - then we have a hung parliament with the SNP ruling as a minority government on an issue by issue basis which is neither a good nor stable form of government.

The SNP (and, to be fair, some of the other parties) will be trying their hardest to form a coalition and, given the above values, the minimum number of seats needed to form a majority is 65 and would require a so-called 'rainbow' coalition between, almost certainly, the SNP, Liberal Democrats and the Greens (47+16+2=65).

Normally, this wouldn't be too far fetched to envisage ocurring as certain policies of the SNP and Liberal Democrats are aligned in the same direction, namely more powers for the Scottish parliament (only certain powers are devolved from Westminster) and the abolition of the Council Tax (which is based upon property price) with a local Income Tax (which, obviously, is based upon ability to pay). There is however one rather big stumbling block; the issue of Scottish independance.

It goes without saying that the SNP are pro-independance. Accordingly, they have pledged to hold a referendum on independance before the end of their term (2010). The Liberal Democrats on the other hand are a Unionist party and as such are implacably opposed to such a move. If these two parties cannot see their way past this issue then a minority government would almost certainly result - which is in the best interests of nobody.

Exciting stuff huh?! Watch this space.

 

[stratman]

Don't you just love politics?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Don't you just love politics?

At present I do but it wasn't always this way. In fact my intense interest these days is, in large part, due to studying the history of my country.

I used to be the same as so many others; totally disengaged with politics and especially politicians. Liers and cheats the lot of them. I'm under no illusions; I still consider all politicians liers and cheats and wouldn't trust one over another.

Now, that may seem a strange thing to say given that I'm clearly now very much 'engaged', but after reading about Scotland's history, I truly began to appreciate just how much politics had a hand in shaping the past, and indeed the present. Learning about the history of my country kindled my interest in politics. Besides, I enjoy debate and nothing generates debate like politics.

I've nothing against the Labour party. Yes they've made some mistakes but who doesn't? But my (logical as ever ) line of thinking is that if, as we all agree, one politition is as bad as another and one political party as bad as another, then it really doesn't make much difference who wins (a generalisation I know but run with me here ). And if that's true, then why not give another party a chance? What's the worst that could happen (I'll come back to the issue of independance below)? Another party get into power, they make a real mess of things. So at the next election the public simply kick them out and re-elect a party who'll do a better job. Life moves on.

Remember, contrary to what was written in the tabloid press, who's coverage was appallingly skewed towards the Union, the election was NOT about independance, but about who would run the country for the next four years. The issue of independance was always a SEPARATE issue.

Although I'm happy because the party I voted for won, and because I personally think they can do just as good (and bad) as any other party, I think the real reason I'm so happy with the result is because another party has been given a chance to shape Scotland into a better place, and that appeals to my sense of fairness.

 

[Mort Corey]

If people had read the instructions, they would have found no difficulty in correctly filling out the forms. That as many as 100,000 votes may be discounted is indicative of nothing more than a lack of intelligence of that many members of the electorate.

Interesting. Scotland has moved off the coast of Florida?

Mort (who hopes the Red Coats don't come raining down on Buckle-meisters parade)

 

[Lady Phoenix]

Fascinating thread! I really haven't been following the developments much, but did hear about this on NPR. It's enlightening to hear about it from a real person (as opposed to the media). Sadly, I'm sure you're right about the election being remembered more for the voting debacle than anything else, but then that's how it tends to be in the U.S., too.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Buckle-meister]

Interesting. Scotland has moved off the coast of Florida?

Actually, as far as I'm aware, nobody's suggesting that our own fiasco had anything to do with 'foul play' as in the case of the results of the state of Florida all those years ago, only that many were confused by the seemingly 'difficult' ballot papers.

In fact, I heard the other day (can't guarantee this is true though) that preliminary statistics has shown a correlation between the number of spoilt ballot papers - now considered to be around 140,000 or around 3.5% of the total count - and affluence of that constituency, with a high number of the former corresponding to poorer areas of the country.

I do agree that the system could've been simplified. However, I maintain what I previously wrote, that if folk had took the time to read and understand the question (help was available at the polling station if you were uncertain - all you had to do was ask) then the process was straightforward.

Is it not obvious: how can you answer the question if you don't know what is being asked?

 

[stratman]

Hey Robbie,

I still say you should run, for PM that is. Heck I'll still vote for you.