Scottish Independence thread

[Denzark]

Very eloquent MM, can't be arsed to go massively off topic to challenge this.

[Mr Mystery]

Rumour that old Rupert Murdoch might be about to back Scottish Independence.

Yet another example of him doing a Lion El'Jonson, and just sitting on the fence until it's clear which way the wind is blowing, then claiming to be the driving force behind a win.

Loathsome little man, and for me, if I had a vote, damned good reason to vote No, or indeed, the opposite of what he favours.

[Psychosplodge]

Is the wind blowing that way though?
What with the angry mob protesting "BBC bias" and the complaints about the release of business decisions in event of a yes,
sounds like the SNP are already lining up excuses for a no.

[Mr Mystery]

I honestly think it is.

As I said when I was actually up in Edinburgh, it feels like it's going to be a Yes. That campaign are being more vocal, and with it too close to call, I think their backers are more likely to actually turn out and vote, as they have the most to gain.

Plus, I was seeing reports over the weekend that support Salmond's claims about the oil amounts etc. Unfortunately, I has no links to it.

I think it should be a No overall - simply because not having had an opinion on it at all, backing a status quo is the sensible option.

- - - Updated - - -

And I wouldn't put it past Murdoch to interfere to generate an outcome that means he has yet more politicians owing him favours.

Vile, vile little reptile of a man.

[Psychosplodge]

I think it should be a No overall - simply because not having had an opinion on it at all, backing a status quo is the sensible option.

probably the most sensible position.

[Mr Mystery]

Yup. Though seeing as I don't personally have anything riding on this, quite moot

[Wolfshade]

The trouble is with any big issue like this that ends up with a near vote you end up with a lot of angry people that lost.

With things like thi I believe the situation should be a presumed status quo unless you have a large majority (2/3rds) for change. (Like they do with the CofE).

That way you ensure that the majority want the change, rather than having near parity wanting no change.

[Mr Mystery]

The trouble is with any big issue like this that ends up with a near vote you end up with a lot of angry people that lost.

With things like thi I believe the situation should be a presumed status quo unless you have a large majority (2/3rds) for change. (Like they do with the CofE).

That way you ensure that the majority want the change, rather than having near parity wanting no change.

Trouble is, that's just not democracy.

Decision like this, first past the post is the only method that really works, as otherwise I'm in favour of Proportional Representation.

Under your one, you could have the future of say, 65% of the population determined by 35%, and that's just not fair.

Take Westminster - 36% of the vote the Tories took. That's all. 36% and now they're in power, and going for it. Sounds undemocratic, but they still have the highest single percentage, so ultimately it is correct that they take power. Though the Libdumbs can suck my clinkers, back stabbing traitors to their own cause that they are!

[Wolfshade]

It is democracy, everyone has a vote. It just requires a supermajority for it to change the status quo.

India for instance, requires a 2/3rds majority to pass bills.

The presumption is that you have a status quo unless you have a mjaority of people wanting a change, and a signifcant one at that.

[Mr Mystery]

Nope. Too easy for those wanting the status quo to remain. All they need is their hardcore of nutters. That would lead to lazy politics.

First Past The Post may be far from perfect, but at least it encourages politicians to get out and campaign. And in order to campaign successfully, you need more than just fringe interest policies (unless you're UKIP of course, who can seemingly successfully campaign despite not having any policies whatsoever).