Scotland Debate

[NWJocko]

It has been said loads of times on here that many SNP voters vote tactically at a GE for Labour.

I had a phone call a we while ago from a No voting friend who admitted he made a big mistake.

I haven't seen that said.....

So, you vote "tactically" and the party you vote for is elected.

Does that not mean your tactic has worked and you have elected the party to power then!!!???

Edit, there are a lot of No voters who will feel they haven't made a mistake, what point were you trying to make?

 

[DCB]

A lot depends on where you stay and the history of the electorate in the area. I've certainly voted 'tactically' in the past to try and elect who I consider as the best bet. They certainly weren't my preferred choice, so, I've voted in what ends up a two horse race.

Come the 2015 General Election, it'll probably be a two horse race in my home constituency, neither would be my preferred choice, but, you chose the one that may do best for the area.

 

[c1973]

It has been said loads of times on here that many SNP voters vote tactically at a GE for Labour.

I had a phone call a we while ago from a No voting friend who admitted he made a big mistake.

So, they want the snp but vote Labour and then greet about not getting the Government they want? That seems logical.

Tactical voting may make sense to some (and I do believe some will do this), but it's a bit rich if they then complain about the result, which seemed to be a recurring theme of the yes supporters flawed campaign tbh.

did they mean to call someone else?

 

[DCB]

Right Gents, The thread has had a clean out of several posts that emanated from insensitive comments on a football related post within this politics thread. Keep the thread on track and please leave the emotive language that football tribalism brings out on the sidelines where it belongs.

DCB

 

[c1973]

Should there not be an election for Holyrood now? With the snp being elected on an independence ticket and the First Minister announcing (via the media outlets not viewed to be against him*) his decision to stand aside it might not be a bad idea imo.

*SPJA to hold an EGM to discuss and respond to various members not being allowed into Bute House to report on the resignation. Certain journalists were allegedly excluded at Salmonds behest as they were viewed to be against him and/or his failed independence bid. Appaling behaviour from a man chosen to represent a nation if true. Surely a story of this magnitude should have seen all press members accommodated, regardless of politics.

Or was this one last petty act from our outgoing megalomaniac leader that we should allow him in exchange for doing the decent thing and going (albeit making sure the news was still all about him and attempting to steal NO campaigns thunder with his timing of said announcement)?

 

[User62651]

SNP were not elected on an independence ticket as proven by the referendum result, they are elected to do right by Scotland within the UK and because Labour made such an arse of things 5 or 6 yrs ago. Like Salmond or not he was a decent first minister getting a good deal for Scotland, all politicians of note eventually get burned and getting out now was the correct thing to do, as for the No campaigns 'thunder' as you call it, I would have said there was intentionally no thunder due to them knowing close to half the country was opposed and the whole referendum being divisive which was the right way to behave imo so Salmond's timing was not through megalomania just realism he's gone as far as he could. Rather than SNP being deposed I suspect we'll need to get used to an SNP majority at Holyrood for the foreseeable, as the independence issue has now passed Scotland's electorate may well keep them in power in Edinburgh as the only party with absolute commitment to Scotland i.e not having to tow the UK party line and given the 3 UK party leaders Vow will probably come to nothing, those vow commitments will need to be chased hard by Edinburgh. I suspect it will all mean bugger all to the poor man in the street however (yet more taxation to fund all the extra politicians) whichever part of the UK you live in but lets give them until Burns night 25th Jan to see if they are collectively serious or not. Labour already see pitfalls with Tories gaining advantage. Rearranging the constitution does not instantly make a skilled workforce or create real jobs or economic conditions attractive to major foreign investors. We live in slight hope though after Friday.

 

[CMAC]

over 164000 views
over 5100 posts, some heated and passionate.....:thup: some sensible:thup: and some in fairyland

along comes the football related posts and in minutes the whole things goes t1ts up, quite sad and one main reason I don't follow any Scottish football anymore.

 

[Val]

This thread has been one of the best threads this forum has had and it would be a shame for football and religion to ruin it.

My first thought today, the referendum is finished so how many balls will I lose in the medal today and who will burst my coupon today, life goes back to normal

 

[MadAdey]

A reasonable attitude and one that I'm sure was in the minds of many of the 'undecideds' who eventually voted 'No'.

But I think he was wrong! Scotland has a similar economy to many very successful countries - New Zealand, the Nordic group and even Switzerland. And I have little doubt that it would have survived and prospered as as independent country - possibly better than it will as part of the Union.

Indicates, to me, that the message of how it would get to the 'truly independent' state - the transition - was not convincing enough.

In effect, the 'no Currency Union' bluff worked!

Perhaps a lesson for the next generation? Though I suspect the situation with Oil/Gas (worldwide even) will be decidedly different by then!

I think that could have one of the reasons why the vote was a 'NO'. People in the undecided category maybe did not see and hear enough to enforce that a yes vote is the right thing to do. He commented that the right things where being said to keep the Pro independence people onside, but if he was able to vote the he would have gone with 'NO' as not enough was being done to sway people like himself who where sat on the fence. I think he was more or less going with the old "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't" attitude.

It was close and with some better tactics to get people onside it would not have taken much to sway the vote, at the end of the day they needed under 200,000 votes more to win, less that 5% of the vote. If the loss had been something like 70/30 then it could never have happened as that would have been a huge amount of voters to win over.

Out of curiosity, who on here voted what (if they want to disclose it that is) and briefly say why. I have found a lot of intelligent people on the political threads here and wondered just what made you vote what you did. I'm just curious as to what the deciding factor was.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How the heck did it get into football and religion or is the answer that obvious -


Anyway - Salmond talking about no voters being lied to and regretting their vote - sounds a bit bitter tbh


http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29296282

 

[c1973]

My own personal opinion is that yes were never actually as close as polls suggested. I've said there would be at least 10% difference all along. Keep in mind that although there was a large turnout, around 15% never voted. I take that to mean they did not want independence either!

I also lean toward the belief (as many people I know do) that a hefty percentage of the 'don't knows' were always NO voters. They were just apprehensive about admitting they were in the NO camp as the accusations of being a traitor, a sassenach, a coward, feart ,etc etc. were intimidating to many. Yep, promises from NO in the last few days may have swayed some, but I genuinely don't believe it was a significant amount, I reckon the majority had made their mind up prior to this.

In my opinion the Yes campaign done nowhere near enough to convince that independence was;
A) Affordable. Or B) Neccesary.

They didn't answer the questions put to them convincingly. Nonsense, blatantly not true and scaremongering (and in the case of defence) who's going to attack us are not sufficient answers I'm afraid.

I make no apologies that I am a Unionist and as far as the UK / Crown is concerned a Loyalist (being a loyalist is nothing to do with religion for me, before the usual suspects pile in). I'm also generally to the left of our political spectrum so a well thought out plan for a more socially equal society would be something I could possibly be drawn to. My mind can be changed though, I'm not blindly loyal to anything, however, nothing the Yes campaign came up with convinced me, they didn't really get close.

There were many turnoffs for me, chiefly the threat of walking away from our share of the debt. I found that to be embarrassing. We all knew that Trident was their gambling chip in the currency union argument, but Yes couldn't admit to this as they would have lost many, many supporters if they did.

Now I feel that if we are to unite a divided nation the Yes campaign needs to disassociate itself from all this social media nonsense of 'we are the 45', demand a recount, claims of rigged election, boycotts of businesses in favour of NO (many Scottish ones!) and the unacceptable general abuse of those who voted NO. They need to do this and they need to do it quickly and unequivocally.

I also feel they should stick to the pre referendum promise of accepting 'the will of the Scottish people' who said NO to independence by ruling out any attempts to engineer a 'neverendum' by stating that it is off the agenda for many years.

Scotland spoke and Scotland said NO. Accept this, as promised, and move on. The nation does not need to be divided again.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Is everyone on here convinced that the three London Party leaders will be able to deliver their very late referendum promises to Scotland?

I, along with about 250,000 other postal voters never had a chance to consider them.

 

[DCB]

Ladies and Gents,

Another clean up has been necessary. Please keep the thread on topic and keep football tribalism out of it. Last warning on this matter. The thread will be locked, which will be a great shame but, if it isn't used properly and within the Forum Rules then there is no other option.

DCB

 

[Old Skier]

Is everyone on here convinced that the three London Party leaders will be able to deliver their very late referendum promises to Scotland?

I, along with about 250,000 other postal voters never had a chance to consider them.

I think you'll get what Scotland was promised, but I doubt if Labour and the Liberals are keen a long standing wish of the Tory's ref English MPs only voting on English matters.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think you'll get what Scotland was promised, but I doubt if Labour and the Liberals are keen a long standing wish of the Tory's ref English MPs only voting on English matters.

I don't think you will be able to find a Scotsman who would disagree with your comment.
I think that there is a gentleman's agreement in place where that happens now.
England has to establish it's own devolved Parliament, like Scotland, and leave Westminster for the UK politicians.

 

[drdel]

I see Mr Salmond is now saying there are other ways for Scotland to become independent !

So he got his referendum but when the majority turns down his option he'll ignore it and try another route.

My family tree has Scottish roots but I must say I left wondering if democracy will ever deliver what the Yes supporters want. It seems to me the Yes side continue to want preferential treatment by all means possible with the rest of us footing the bill. Scotland already enjoys our subsidy but appears, like most who get something for nothing, to want more.

The Oil debate ignores the investment by people from across the UK and the Yes supports want to share the UK's benefits but when it comes to sharing the Oil - no way. All of a sudden the advantages of the UK's common shared efforts in WW2, the EU and global business turns to selfish in-fighting.

The Yes campaign is still saying "...give me some of what you have, but I'm keep all I have!"

I for one have been more convinced by the "Yes's" rhetoric after the vote that I'm against giving Scotland any more - if we are all British as part of the UK then we should all enjoy the same benefits in Health, Education tax etc.

If the No supporters really were fooled by Politicians' promises then they aren't smart enough to govern themselves!!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I am a bit intrigued why Cameron and others think "There can be no disputes, no reruns – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people"

What makes him think that? Maybe no rerun in the next 25yrs can currently be envisaged - but that is not to say that circumstances might change sufficiently for there to be a reasonable case. The case for independence does not go away just because the current electorate don't want it.

 

[CMAC]

I am a bit intrigued why Cameron and others think "There can be no disputes, no reruns – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people"

What makes him think that? Maybe no rerun in the next 25yrs can currently be envisaged - but that is not to say that circumstances might change sufficiently for there to be a reasonable case. The case for independence does not go away just because the current electorate don't want it.

are you just going to adopt Robert The Bruce spider 'story' and just keep going till its a yes?

It was a HUGE NO at the start of the campaign and only close near the end for all the wrong reasons.

Independence was going to be forever, why cant no independence be viewed the same way?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

are you just going to adopt Robert The Bruce spider 'story' and just keep going till its a yes?

It was a HUGE NO at the start of the campaign and only close near the end for all the wrong reasons.

Independence was going to be forever, why cant no independence be viewed the same way?

I would be interested to hear what your version of 'the wrong reasons' were.

Historically and going into the referendum it has always been 30/70 for Independence.
A week before all polls/opinion was that it was too 'close to call'.
Gordon Brown and the sweetie package changed that.

Not far off half of Scotland wanted to leave the UK, surprisingly not all of them were deep fried mars bar haggis eaters.
You cannot just dismiss that number of a countries residents.

There are a lot of disappointed Scots on both sides of the argument now that the Three Amegos have reverted to form.

 

[FairwayDodger]

There are a lot of disappointed Scots on both sides of the argument now that the Three Amegos have reverted to form.

Not really sure what people expected would have been achieved by this point. The time to kick up a fuss is if and when the extra powers fail to materialise.

However, that doesn't fit the SNP agenda. They don't want the new powers to be delivered, they want unrest so they can continue to manipulate and divide the people of Scotland. Until they eventually force independence - their sole reason for existing and the thing they prize above the good of the country.

We have had the longest political campaign in memory and it energised the people like never before. We were a beacon of democracy throughout the world. But a fundamental aspect of democracy is to accept the democratic will of the people; which was NO.

Salmond is the only one who has, so far, reneged on a pledge by failing to accept the democratic result of the referendum.