Monday 5 August 2013

First Minister of Scotland: We will win independence referendum


  1. The BBC could learn an awful lot in how to do a professional interview.

    1. Funny that, CH, I thought exactly the same thing!

    2. I suppose it depends what you're trying to be professional at.

      Isn't it fascinating how the Russian media which was until recently a by-word for the State control of information has grown up. Conversely, the Great British media which once prided itself on its freedom to challenge the establishment, has become worse than Pravda.

    3. Interesting point Barney.

      They become more democratic; the BBC more dictatorial.

  2. Replies
    1. Excellent.

      Monty has been talk about this for some time.

      We must at least have the results verified by international scrutineers.

      The UK authorities aren't to be trusted with anything, and most surely not something that means as much to them as this.

  3. Not according to any of the main opinion polls.

    If the SNP do manage to win, it will be a stolen victory, where they sneak a victory through a minority turnout.

    Westminster should have imposed a minimum turnout requirement of 50%. If turnout is anything less, the result isn't valid.

    1. What race are they in? If its the referendum you are talking about then the SNP only allowed us to have a democratic vote on independence nothing more.


      You must be getting worried in advocating undemocratic hurdles this far from the vote.

    2. Dean: Would you apply that to all elections?

      Would you apply it to each constituency?

      What would you do it say in Constituency X only 38% turned out, particularly in by-elections and EU elections this wouldn't be surprising...

    3. They did it last time CH. Labour Mp came up with the idea of 40% of the total population must ahve voted yes.

      Anyone who was out of the country, or sick or not interested, or hadn't heard about the referendum or who had dies since the last census and not been removed was counted as voting no.

      It means that although the majority of people who had voted were for devolution, we didn't get it on the backs of people who weren't interested in who governed them, or who preferred to do something else that day.

  4. Deano

    if you dont vote then you cant complain on the result. Trying to have it both ways
    a despicable Unionist trait.

    Quite happy to be ruled by a westmonster elected by a far less %

    1. Yep Niko.

      I've always said that if you don't bother to vote you have absolutely no right to criticise the results.

      Whatever else you say about the UK, we do at least get the chance to vote. OK the system often militates against us if we support anything other than the two biggest parties. We allow postal votes, we allow proxy votes. It's not like it's hard to organise.

      But regularly people don't bother their backsides.

      I remember when there was the standoff in Tiananmen Square in Beijing; people prepared to die for the right to vote. There was an election campaign going on at the time in the UK and Kinnock (for whom I didn't have a lot of time) was on TV. He pointed out what was happening in China and he said... for god's sake go and vote ...I'd like you to vote Labour, but even it you don't please vote. People are prepared to die for what you take for granted.

      It stuck with me and I've never missed a vote.

      I have no truck with someone who doesn't bother and then criticises the outcome...and there are people who do that...amazingly.

    2. I see from Doug Daniels that Alex Gallagher (aka Braveheart) wants a 70% turnout (which, of course, he knows is extremely unlikely) to validify the result.

      He argues that the local golf club requires a vote of 75% to change the constitution, so why wouldn't the country... Following that example we should probably make sure that all changes of MS, MEP, MWP or councillor should have a 70% turnout, just like the golf club!

      I repeat though, if people can't get their fat lazy arses out of bed to go and vote, they shouldn't come complaining when the result isn't what they wanted.

      It is up to the Yes and No campaigns to get the message across and to interest people, many of whom frankly don't give a flying fig one way of the other.

      There are numbers of people who don't even know that there is going to be a referendum, just like there are loads of people who don't know when there is an election... despite the wall to wall news coverage.

      If you open the Sun, glance at the back pages and then page three, why would you know what it says of page 4 or 14?

      Whichever way the result comes out it is important.

      From my point of view, a no vote will mean I'm stuck with the Tories for most of the rest of my life, just as I have been so far, having never once voted for them. For that reason I'd get out of my bed and walk 500 miles to vote, because that is a fate worse than death, and now that there is no opposition to their vile policies in London, they will just get worse.

      I know thought that for some other folk a yes vote will mean that they will lose all the tax dodging rights that accrue to the rich in the Uk, the aristocratic titles which they can so easily buy, the weapons of mass destruction they so much cherish, because they like the idea of being powerful and important, and being part of the second most important country in the world (ahem).

      OK, that's the way I see it, but clearly for some people that is a consideration. It matters to be British, and more important than other people.

      Wee, uninfluential (but quite rich) Scotland is not where some people want to belong. I respect that, and they have the right to vote for that.

      If they win by 50% + 1 of the people who can be bothered to vote, I will have to accept it.

      The No campaign have to man up and say the same thing.

      I can see that they might want to go and live in England if we win, so that they can enjoy all the benefits of being English.