So the Scots vote No on Thursday, how would you vote

[Octopus]

At the moment the Scottish MP's can, and do vote on bills passing through Parliament which don't affect them.

So if the Scots vote no and stay part of the Union should the Scottish MP's be allowed to vote on English/Welsh matters?

 

[dingledong]

No
Because the government is giving them more powers of self government so I want the same therefore no Scots voting on English bills etc

 

[trev]

No
Because the government is giving them more powers of self government so I want the same therefore no Scots voting on English bills etc

The promise of more power is the bribe to get the no vote, it's not the reason people are voting no.

 

[Spoon]

Is it just me that feels like the Schottish being asked to vote is like a little boy asking to choose between to phedo's.... you know you are going to get shafted whatever happens.

 

[trev]

It's a bit of a daft question really, for 300 years Westminster has decided what will happen north of the border. Since our present system evolved English, Welsh and Irish MPs have all voted on policies which don't necessarily have an impact on their part of the union and no one has ever had a problem with it.
Devolving more powers to Scotland will inevitably lead to devolution campaigns in the regions of the UK, I'm against this. When a northern region assembly was proposed a few years ago it turned out that if granted it would be just another tier of bureaucracy with no actual powers, obviously this would be just another cost which the tax payer would have to bear.

 

[Octopus]

It's a bit of a daft question really, for 300 years Westminster has decided what will happen north of the border. Since our present system evolved English, Welsh and Irish MPs have all voted on policies which don't necessarily have an impact on their part of the union and no one has ever had a problem with it.
Devolving more powers to Scotland will inevitably lead to devolution campaigns in the regions of the UK, I'm against this. When a northern region assembly was proposed a few years ago it turned out that if granted it would be just another tier of bureaucracy with no actual powers, obviously this would be just another cost which the tax payer would have to bear.

Er, no its not.

Tony Blair only got tuition fees for rUK students past in Parliament, with the backing of the Scottish MP's - this was hardly fair and I think such votes should never happen again!

 

[trev]

Er, no its not.

Tony Blair only got tuition fees for rUK students past in Parliament, with the backing of the Scottish MP's - this was hardly fair and I think such votes should never happen again!

So carry it to it's ridiculous conclusion, an issue comes up which affects Cumbria and no other part of the country. By applying the same logic then only Cumbrian MPs should get to vote on it.

 

[Octopus]

So carry it to it's ridiculous conclusion, an issue comes up which affects Cumbria and no other part of the country. By applying the same logic then only Cumbrian MPs should get to vote on it.

Thats bxllxcks and you know it.

my point is that English mps aren't allowed to vote in holyryd on Scottish only matters so why should Scottish mps vote on English only matters?

 

[trev]

I see your point and to a point agree, but you don't seem to see mine. Why does an MP who represents your constituency have a vote on something which happens in mine?
Because the system, as flawed as it is, is the best available.

 

[Rockingit]

I've largely kept my thoughts out of this whole debate, which I'll for the most part continue to do, but I think one fundamental principle whichever way the vote goes has to be 'together (and equal)' or 'apart'. You can't have some grey area in the middle of somethings to some and not to others, that's part of what's gotten us all into this mess in the first place. Well, that and Mel Gibson.

 

[Octopus]

I see your point and to a point agree, but you don't seem to see mine. Why does an MP who represents your constituency have a vote on something which happens in mine?
Because the system, as flawed as it is, is the best available.

The whole point is that English and Welsh MP's collectively vote on English and Welsh matters and Scottish vote on Scottish only matters.

Obviously they would ALL vote on UK matters!

 

[trev]

So why would a Welsh MP get a say on an English matter and vice versa.

 

[Octopus]

So why would a Welsh MP get a say on an English matter and vice versa.

Thats what happens currently except the Scots have their vote on our matters too!

The Welsh can only vote on some of their "things" - Englandis the only country in the union without this "pleasure"

Seems to me like too many paper pushers, and duplicate levels!

 

[chris murphy]

"Hello All",

I know that this will probably result in Me being ridiculed and I obviously do know the basic principle of a `Democratic Vote`:

I realise that there had to be a way of finding out Public opinion in Scotland about becoming `Independent` from the rest of the UK and that this is why a Referendum was put in place.

BUT - now that the Opinion Polls are showing almost a 50 / 50 Split YES / NO to the Scottish Independence question would it really be a `Fair Result` if YES was voted by 51% to 49% ?

IF that happens this `Democratic Vote` would impose the Result on virtually HALF the population who do NOT want that result.

Would HALF of ANY Group of People be happily resigned to the result of a `Fair Vote` about something as important as this going against their wishes / opinions ?

The idea of `Majority Rule` in any situation would not make for a satisfied group of People if the result was 51% / 49% - there would be too many dissatisfied People !

I would have thought that there should have been a Vote in Scotland to see what percentage of the population supported `Scottish Independence` and then IF the result showed a SIGNIFICANT percentage wanted it a Referendum would follow to then sign the will of a SIGNIFICANT majority into Law / Legislate for Scottish Independence.

Personally I don`t feel that Scotland should become Independent on a VERY small percentage - IF the `YES` vote wins - because it will be against the wishes of almost HALF the population.

What do other Members think about my comments ?

Regards,

Chris

 

[Octopus]

If the outcome, either way, is as close as the pollsters predict, the harmony and tranquility of Scotland could be ruined for ever.

I simply can't imagine the Yes campaign taking a narrow defeat graciously

 

[BES]

"Hello All",

I know that this will probably result in Me being ridiculed and I obviously do know the basic principle of a `Democratic Vote`:

I realise that there had to be a way of finding out Public opinion in Scotland about becoming `Independent` from the rest of the UK and that this is why a Referendum was put in place.

BUT - now that the Opinion Polls are showing almost a 50 / 50 Split YES / NO to the Scottish Independence question would it really be a `Fair Result` if YES was voted by 51% to 49% ?

IF that happens this `Democratic Vote` would impose the Result on virtually HALF the population who do NOT want that result.

Would HALF of ANY Group of People be happily resigned to the result of a `Fair Vote` about something as important as this going against their wishes / opinions ?

The idea of `Majority Rule` in any situation would not make for a satisfied group of People if the result was 51% / 49% - there would be too many dissatisfied People !

I would have thought that there should have been a Vote in Scotland to see what percentage of the population supported `Scottish Independence` and then IF the result showed a SIGNIFICANT percentage wanted it a Referendum would follow to then sign the will of a SIGNIFICANT majority into Law / Legislate for Scottish Independence.

Personally I don`t feel that Scotland should become Independent on a VERY small percentage - IF the `YES` vote wins - because it will be against the wishes of almost HALF the population.

What do other Members think about my comments ?

Regards,

Chris

I'm hoping for a scottish civil war friday.

 

[Slowhand]

I don't care, I just wish they'd shut up about it.

 

[chris murphy]

"Hello again",


I am hoping for some replies / comments from our Members in Scotland.

Regards,

Chris

 

[Octopus]

"Hello again",


I am hoping for some replies / comments from our Members in Scotland.

Regards,

Chris

I thought this thread may get more comments full stop!

 

[trev]

Chris I'm not a Scot but in response to your 51/49% question.
What do you call a clear majority? I'd say 2% more represents that.
If you don't agree then where are you going to draw the line and why? Why would, for arguments sake, 67.3% be more palatable than 50.9%
If more people want something than don't then they get it. That's the way a democratic society is supposed to work except in the case of our general elections where historically parties have gained power despite effectively more voting against them than for them.

 

[Dcf]

I'm hoping for a scottish civil war friday.

Nice one bes
you were better when you danced with the happy Mondays
rather than "comedian"

 

[trev]

Bad news mate, that was Bez. Not Bes.

 

[Dcf]

Bad news mate, that was Bez. Not Bes.

I know trev.
close enough for me

 

[chris murphy]

Chris I'm not a Scot but in response to your 51/49% question.
What do you call a clear majority? I'd say 2% more represents that.
If you don't agree then where are you going to draw the line and why? Why would, for arguments sake, 67.3% be more palatable than 50.9%
If more people want something than don't then they get it. That's the way a democratic society is supposed to work except in the case of our general elections where historically parties have gained power despite effectively more voting against them than for them.

"Hello Trev",

Thanks for your reply / comments.

I did write in the first paragraph of my first Post on this that obviously I know about the `Democratic Vote` principle - and I cannot disagree with anything that You wrote - I was expecting exactly those and similar comments.

I am NOT trying to be pedantic with these `Guesstimates` Trev - just debating / `reinforcing my point`:

There obviously IS a VERY big difference between a Vote of 67.3% and 50.9% in terms of how many Scottish people would be satisfied / dissatisfied.

I think that the population of Scotland is approximately 5 Million [?] - I have not checked the number of people eligible to vote but on the National Average basis that approximately 20% of people are under 16 Years old - and GUESSING that at least 15% of people will NOT Vote [?] - that leaves 3.5 Million votes [Guesstimate].

I am guessing that there will be a very big percentage of eligible voters voting on this Referendum because of the importance / historical significance [?].

IF all of those 3.5 Million votes were cast:

67.3% would be 2355500 votes.

50.9% would be 1781500 votes.

The difference being 574000 votes - a significant number of People.

Although I do take your point that this would still leave the 32.7% balance of Voters dissatisfied = 1144500 People.


As I mentioned I cannot refute any of your comments but I still feel that to change something as important as the `United Kingdom` a much higher majority should have been found BEFORE deciding on the Referendum - in MY opinion perhaps as high as at least 60% + in favour of Scottish Independence.

Regards,

Chris

 

[trev]

But why is 60% acceptable when 50.1% represents a majority?
In your scenario then if 59% vote in favour then the majority of people are not going to get what they vote in favour of.
Liken that to the promised in/out referendum on EU membership (which will probably never happen) If the majority voted one way and the government decided to ignore them or moved the goalposts it would be inviting civil unrest and possible anarchy.
Another one could be a vote in the commons, a majority is represented by 327 MPs. If the government goes against them and declares that it is not a viable majority then they are no different from some tinpot dictator in a banana republic.
Either we have a democratic society which goes with the will of the majority or we do not, a majority is a majority.

 

[Diddy]

I have always though that since we had devolved powers the Scottish Mp's should not be able to vote on stuff that R-UK Mp's cant vote on in our country...like R-UK cant decide our health policy so we should have bugger all to do with yours...that kind of thing.

 

[Adam W]

The way I see it the outcome people wanted was yes or no. If neither side wins by more than, say, 2%, they should allow further campaigning and have another vote, or just recount all the votes to remove any question of a margin of error, and the winning campaign wins - if the Scotch react by having a civil war then that's their problem. It's 'yes' or 'no'. Not 'maybe'. Likewise in the last general election the winning party were the conservatives, followed by Labour. IMO that should have been the end of it - the party with the most votes should have got into power, not 'oh well it was a close one so we'll give it to the Lib Dems instead'.

Same with the EU referendum we were promised - it's 'in' or 'out'. In the event of a close call I don't expect to end up with 'shake it all about'.

 

[Octopus]

This is worth a read:

BBC News - Scottish or Catalan vote 'torpedoes EU', says Spain's Rajoy

 

[trev]

There's another one, More economic recession and poverty but no explanation how.

 

[Dcf]

This is worth a read:

BBC News - Scottish or Catalan vote 'torpedoes EU', says Spain's Rajoy

the bbc is hardly the orator of truth just now is it ?
so in the event of scotland being outside the eu where are all the spanish fisherman going to fish?
cos it will be our waters and not eu territory we could tell them to bolt.
and where does that leave the spanish fishing industry ?
another load of unsubstantiated rubbish.

 

[chris murphy]

But why is 60% acceptable when 50.1% represents a majority?
In your scenario then if 59% vote in favour then the majority of people are not going to get what they vote in favour of.
Liken that to the promised in/out referendum on EU membership (which will probably never happen) If the majority voted one way and the government decided to ignore them or moved the goalposts it would be inviting civil unrest and possible anarchy.
Another one could be a vote in the commons, a majority is represented by 327 MPs. If the government goes against them and declares that it is not a viable majority then they are no different from some tinpot dictator in a banana republic.
Either we have a democratic society which goes with the will of the majority or we do not, a majority is a majority.

"Hello again Trev",

PLEASE don`t think that I am patronising You with these comments - I certainly am NOT:

I am NOT stating that the result of the Referendum should not stand / become the Legal situation irrespective of the percentage differential - of course this Democratic Vote with all of the ramifications that the possible `YES` result causes should stand.

I maintain that BEFORE the Referendum was put into place there should have been an indication that there was a much higher percentage of the population who were in favour of a `YES` vote.

I am sure that as this has been debated for YEARS between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster at least a couple of Polls could have been carried out to judge the possible `Yes` percentage - these Polls could have been added to Voting at the Local Elections - the `Turnout` to vote on those Elections would probably have been much higher with this `Vote on possible Scottish Independence` Poll added at Polling Stations.


While I agree with your sentiments about Democracy / `The will of the People` completely regarding matters that MERIT a Vote / Referendum - In MY opinion there should NOT have been a Referendum at all if the almost 50 / 50 - Yes / No situation was found to exist.

There are going to be far too many People in Scotland who are very dissatisfied which ever way the vote goes.

I know that You could state that this is the same as the MILLIONS of People in the UK who voted for the [elected] Opposition in a General Election - BUT that IS a very long standing Parliamentary Election process - NOT a Vote / Referendum that was brought about by what I view as a flawed process.


Regards,

Chris

 

[trev]

Chris I don't think you're patronising me. I like debate as much as (probably more than) the next man.

 

[dingledong]

I see your point and to a point agree, but you don't seem to see mine. Why does an MP who represents your constituency have a vote on something which happens in mine?
Because the system, as flawed as it is, is the best available.

Because your English unfortunately
You live in an area called England so as a democracy this is what we do
Not like Stalin did
We all get to choose and vote

 

[trev]

I know all about democracy Ding, I'm a great believer in it.

 

[dingledong]

Then why are you saying that why should mp's from different places in England not have anything to do with where you live
That's not democracy is it

 

[trev]

If you'd read through what I was saying properly you'd know that was not what I was advocating at all. I was taking the lead from statements made by other people and expanding on them.
For example, if a Welsh MP does not have the right to vote on an issue that affects Tyneside then why should an MP representing a Devon constituency have a say on it?
The point I was trying to get to is you either follow the democratic way which we have even though it is flawed (read back and you'll see me mention that and say that it's the best system we have) or you exclude people from the decision making process.
Excluding people from the process is entirely the wrong way of doing things imo.

 

[dingledong]

So carry it to it's ridiculous conclusion, an issue comes up which affects Cumbria and no other part of the country. By applying the same logic then only Cumbrian MPs should get to vote on it.

This is what you said
No's from other areas let's say essex should not vote on things that might affect Cumbria
But your still in england

 

[trev]

This is what you said
No's from other areas let's say essex should not vote on things that might affect Cumbria
But your still in england

See #37 mate. It'll help you get things in their proper context.

 

[dingledong]

But the government seems to want to give Wales more power to itself so let Welsh mp's vote for there stuff and English mp's vote for our stuff except for major things of course

 

[Adam W]

I always thought specific local issues were mainly dealt with by local councils, and the issues discussed in parliament were issues which would affect the constituents of each MP voting on it. The problem is Scottish MPs are voting on issues such as tuition and prescription fees which don't affect their constituents. It's like turkeys voting on Christmas.