• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Scottish Independence

Scottish independence - Yes or No?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
In a lot of ways a 'No' win is a Labour Party win as the current government pretty much stepped aside and let Labour MPs lead the campaign. Cameron can be seen as setting up the uncertainty and then offering the earth and letting Labour head up the cavalry. I think this will effect the general election.

All three parties offered the earth including Labour. The main reason Labour were let lead the campaign is actually simply that they are the largest of three main parties in Scotland.

As GHG said the interesting point is where do the parties go from here on an English government? There will almost certainly have to be one, which if Labour were to win the next UK general election would give them huge problems in gaining legislation within an English government as there majority is likely to the Scottish MPs.
 
This is all positive for us though. It is absolutely right that English MPs are already kicking off about the Devo Max suggestions but hopefully this leads to proper devolution for England - something which should have happened 15 years ago - as opposed to further powers to Scotland being torpedoed.

This campaign has showed that if you give people in the UK something to vote on which they care about and which they believe their vote will count for then hey'll actively participate. The current system disillusions and disenfranchises the vast majority of the UK population and that's why there's so much apathy and cynicism. Hopefully the events of today will lead to huge changes to the UK constitution whatever the result.
 
Personally my solution to it would be to have no British MPs at all. Only to have English MPs, Scottish MSPs, Welsh and N. Irish assembly members and have them vote on their own devolved powers that have been promised ala Scotland, then when it is a UK issue have all these MPs vote on it.
 
I agree. The national MPs should govern each country from the national assemblies and relocate to Westminster for overall UK issues.
 
Bet Ed Miliband is sighing the biggest sigh of relief.

Labour would have had even less chance of being in power if Scotland had gone.

Notice how he was barely used to convince the scots, even the areas that Labour are strong in dont like him.
 
Common sense prevails in Scotland. Amazing numbers turned out to vote, only 4 areas so far (1 remaining) voted "Yes".

Personally my solution to it would be to have no British MPs at all. Only to have English MPs, Scottish MSPs, Welsh and N. Irish assembly members and have them vote on their own devolved powers that have been promised ala Scotland, then when it is a UK issue have all these MPs vote on it.

I agree. The national MPs should govern each country from the national assemblies and relocate to Westminster for overall UK issues.

This is the only common sense solution hence forward. You simply can't have Welsh and Scottish and Irish MPs with equal power in their own country and in national matters, while exclusively English representatives don't have that power in England.
 
Another area which has yet to be explored further.............allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. With an 80+% turnout is it now time to look at lowering the voting age?
 
Another area which has yet to be explored further.............allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. With an 80+% turnout is it now time to look at lowering the voting age?

The high turnout is because of what the vote was.

People knew what they were voting for and knew their vote counted.

In Southend for example there is little point voting as Tories always win, and whatever political party you vote for you never really know what you are voting for or what they will deliver so far more reason for apathy.
 
Bet Ed Miliband is sighing the biggest sigh of relief.

Labour would have had even less chance of being in power if Scotland had gone.

Notice how he was barely used to convince the scots, even the areas that Labour are strong in dont like him.

I think he was until Cameron's speech a few minutes after your post. He has torpedoed Labour by tying a solution to the West Lothian question to the cross-party commitment to for more powers to Scotland. That has the potential to be a huge vote winner in the Election and if it happens could make things tricky for any future Labour Government to get any English legistlation through Parliament.
 
The high turnout is because of what the vote was.

People knew what they were voting for and knew their vote counted.

In Southend for example there is little point voting as Tories always win, and whatever political party you vote for you never really know what you are voting for or what they will deliver so far more reason for apathy.

Which is why we need to look again at the voting system as part of a wider, radical, reform of the UK constitution. If people don't think that their vote will count then they won't bother voting.
 
The high turnout is because of what the vote was.

People knew what they were voting for and knew their vote counted.

In Southend for example there is little point voting as Tories always win, and whatever political party you vote for you never really know what you are voting for or what they will deliver so far more reason for apathy.

Yeah, I get that, in part, but I would be interested to see the proportion of under 18s (%) that made up the total voting numbers.
 
Which is why we need to look again at the voting system as part of a wider, radical, reform of the UK constitution. If people don't think that their vote will count then they won't bother voting.

Its not just whether the vote counts, ie voting for labour in Tory Strongholds being a wasted vote, but whether people believe that their vote is going to go to something that will actually make a difference.

Scotland Yes/No is easy, a voter knows they voted for something that will/wont happen so they know its worthwhile.

Even in a close voting area in a general election people dont know if voting for either party would actually result in any change even if their party were to win.

Its the lack of faith in politicians and their world of spin that leaves a lot of people total apathetic. ".Whats the point in voting nothings ever changes"

If and when we get a vote whether to stay in the EU you will see a massive turnout compared to party elections.
 
Its not just whether the vote counts, ie voting for labour in Tory Strongholds being a wasted vote, but whether people believe that their vote is going to go to something that will actually make a difference.

Scotland Yes/No is easy, a voter knows they voted for something that will/wont happen so they know its worthwhile.

Even in a close voting area in a general election people dont know if voting for either party would actually result in any change even if their party were to win.

Its the lack of faith in politicians and their world of spin that leaves a lot of people total apathetic. ".Whats the point in voting nothings ever changes"

If and when we get a vote whether to stay in the EU you will see a massive turnout compared to party elections.

I've never been a fan but I'm wondering whether proportional representation is the answer. And before Barna shouts his mouth off, I am fully aware that it would benefit my party of choice. My point is that if voters know that at least a couple of candidates of their prefered party are more likely to get in then they will be more inclined to vote.
 
Its not just whether the vote counts, ie voting for labour in Tory Strongholds being a wasted vote, but whether people believe that their vote is going to go to something that will actually make a difference.

Scotland Yes/No is easy, a voter knows they voted for something that will/wont happen so they know its worthwhile.

Even in a close voting area in a general election people dont know if voting for either party would actually result in any change even if their party were to win.

Its the lack of faith in politicians and their world of spin that leaves a lot of people total apathetic. ".Whats the point in voting nothings ever changes"

If and when we get a vote whether to stay in the EU you will see a massive turnout compared to party elections.

I agree with this but FPTP has entrenched the two party system which makes it almost impossible to have someone for the public to vote for who hasn't been completely indoctrinated by the System.

I was a huge fan of FPTP when I was younger - my dissertation at Uni was in support of it - but I do now think that we need to move beyond it as one of a number of changes in order to restore democracy to the UK.
 
I agree with this but FPTP has entrenched the two party system which makes it almost impossible to have someone for the public to vote for who hasn't been completely indoctrinated by the System.

I was a huge fan of FPTP when I was younger - my dissertation at Uni was in support of it - but I do now think that we need to move beyond it as one of a number of changes in order to restore democracy to the UK.

Certainly having some other system where all votes count towards the outcome would encourage some to vote.

Ive never voted in Southend because its pointless in voting anything other than Tory.

Even in 2010 the turnout for Southend West was 65% which is fairly decent in an area where the outcome is pretty much set in stone.

Sorting out whether Scotland have any say south of the border if we have less say what happens up there is definitely the first step.
 
Certainly having some other system where all votes count towards the outcome would encourage some to vote.

Ive never voted in Southend because its pointless in voting anything other than Tory.

Even in 2010 the turnout for Southend West was 65% which is fairly decent in an area where the outcome is pretty much set in stone.

Sorting out whether Scotland have any say south of the border if we have less say what happens up there is definitely the first step.

Really? In the 1980 by-election Teddy Taylor was returned by 430 votes. 431 of the 34,000 that didn't vote could have made a difference. Even in the 1992 election where his majority was 13,111, nearly 15,000 didn't vote. Every vote can and does count.

For me PR has its advantages, in that it's fairer to each party. However, I don't for one second believe it will lead to an increase in the turnout. After all, if people don't vote because "they're all the same" then nothing will have changed for them as it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to them who is elected.

And to me the pros are massively outweighed by the cons. The main con being that fringe parties can end up with a disproportional amount of power.
 
Back
Top