Referendum on Scottish Independence

[gangleri2001]

What's getting you so exicted? You've already made it clear that the only thing you see the UK as offering Catalonia is wrecking the EU, and that's just because 8% less plausible.

No Scotish interferences in our own prcesses and the fact that the UK will leave the EU anyways and it will leave it... without oil!!!!! MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Teh EU cannot into oilz!

Time to start another thread "Referendum on the UK's membership in the EU 2017".

I guess that Scottish pro-EU votes aren't going to change the inevitable.

Before that you'll have to open the Catalan referendum thread.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Result was sad for me but it was what I predicted. Can't believe they're calling it a 'triumph of democracy' when the result shows the biggest grassroots movement in Scottish political history being crushed by an old corrupt establishment based outside the country, whose triumph was predicated fear & smear and the media control necessary to convey it. Opposite of democratic triumph, high turnout aside.

My only hope is that now many of the Scots are more educated politics and that many of the lines of power have risen to popular visibility. When the British establishment don't give them their extra powers, and use the media to make that seem ok, people will notice. Sadly people don't seem to have memories that go beyond a few weeks. They've lied before on many occasions, the media seem on each occasion to convince them it was ok.

 

[Traitorfish]

No Scotish interferences in our own prcesses and the fact that the UK will leave the EU anyways and it will leave it... without oil!!!!! MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Teh EU cannot into oilz!

Your politics will forever remain a mystery to me.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Result was sad for me but it was what I predicted. Can't believe they're calling it a 'triumph of democracy' when the result shows the biggest grassroots movement in Scottish political history being crushed by an old corrupt establishment based outside the country, whose triumph was predicated fear & smear and the media control necessary to convey it. Opposite of democratic triumph, high turnout aside.

My only hope is that now many of the Scots are more educated politics and that many of the lines of power have risen to popular visibility. When the British establishment don't give them their extra powers, and use the media to make that seem ok, people will notice. Sadly people don't seem to have memories that go beyond a few weeks. They've lied before on many occasions, the media seem on each occasion to convince them it was ok.

The rules of this referendum were written by the Nationalists (and that's not a metaphor - the rules are written in the Referendum Act they passed). But the people rejected it. I'm disappointed if you think the Scottish people are ignorant - at the pro-Union rally I attended the emphasis was on celebrating Scotland's achievements. And how on earth can you claim Brown, Darling, Lamont, Rowling, etc. are based outside of Scotland?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Your politics will forever remain a mystery to me.

I thought it was Catalonia über alles.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The rules of this referendum were written by the Nationalists (and that's not a metaphor - the rules are written in the Referendum Act they passed). But the people rejected it. I'm disappointed if you think the Scottish people are ignorant - at the pro-Union rally I attended the emphasis was on celebrating Scotland's achievements. And how on earth can you claim Brown, Darling, Lamont, Rowling, etc. are based outside of Scotland?

You got me there.

 

[Traitorfish]

And how on earth can you claim Brown, Darling, Lamont, Rowling, etc. are based outside of Scotland?

They were the public faces of the No campaign, but they were hardly the driving force. Brown wasn't even seriously involved until the last few weeks, when they realised they needed to bring in a senior Labour figure who could at least pretend to be a man of the people.

 

[gangleri2001]

Your politics will forever remain a mystery to me.

It can't get more logic than that. the UK leaves the EU and the EU has no Scottish oil and Catalonia gets its own process of independence free from any Scottish interferences.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't even know what "Scottish interferences" means.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't even know what "Scottish interferences" means.

Spoiler :

?

It's a nice change of pace for me though, frequently #1 takes that role.

More to the thread, I hope things work out as well as they can with the powersharing and negotiations and whatnot in the next several months TF, all the best of wishes.

 

[gangleri2001]

I don't even know what "Scottish interferences" means.

There would be inevitably Scottish interferences in negotiating with the EU once both independences had been achieved simultanously. Now with with Scotland remaining in the UK we have the EU losing a bigger chunck of oily land in a foresseable future and Catalonia getting is own taylor made dress when negotiating with the EU. Not to mention that the lack of any alien interference would most likely favor euroskeptic positions within Catalan society.

 

[Alassius]

Also, I've just read that Darling's reaction was 'the silent have spoken'. I'm not sure that makes sense.

In the sense that if you were on the street, all you see and hear would be Yes, but it's the lower profile No that had more supporters. Half of No voters felt personally threatened by Yes voters, whereas only a quarter of Yes voters felt similarly.

But it must be stressed that this kind of intimidation was in an entirely different ballpark from, say, Russia or Kenya. Few other countries would have done it with the same degree of grace.

 

[Traitorfish]

I note the seamless transition from "some people felt intimidated" to "there was intimidation", as if the one naturally implies the other.

 

[Flying Pig]

Surely being intimidated is one of those things that you can't really challenge - maybe nobody tried to be intimidating, but that's not the same thing. If someone says they were intimidated, they were intimidated.

 

[Mise]

That's the problem with verbs in English though isn't it. "They were intimidated" could be taken to mean that some people deliberately intimidated them, or it could be taken to mean that some people felt intimidated by something (such as the gravity of the vote they were making).

 

[Traitorfish]

Alassius refers to "this kind of intimidation". It's not a grammatical quirk of the English language, he's pretty much literally stating that intimidation took place. He clarifies that he doesn't mean voter intimidation in the usual sense, yes, but it remains on some level an accusation of No voters by Yes voters, and to a lesser extent of Yes voters by No voters, however non-deliberate or indirect, and that seems to me a stronger claim than the evidence given, that people reported feeling intimidated, supports.

 

[Alassius]

I note the seamless transition from "some people felt intimidated" to "there was intimidation", as if the one naturally implies the other.

Intimidation could be yelling "**** off you traitor ****" to your face, or having 20 people standing outside a polling station with broken bottles and baseball bats. They are both intimidations, and the former certainly have happened. But the existence of the former doesn't imply the existence of the latter. Emotions need to be let out, and swearing is firmly in the free speech territory. The fact it did not turn violent is an extraordinary achievement.

 

[useless]

Salmond is stepping down apparently.

 

[Flying Pig]

Intimidation could be yelling "**** off you traitor ****" to your face, or having 20 people standing outside a polling station with broken bottles and baseball bats. They are both intimidations, and the former certainly have happened. But the existence of the former doesn't imply the existence of the latter. Emotions need to be let out, and swearing is firmly in the free speech territory. The fact it did not turn violent is an extraordinary achievement.

Actually I don't think that is in the free speech territory - speaking in such a way as to cause another person to fear injury or harm is a crime.

 

[Quackers]

Intimidation could be yelling "**** off you traitor ****" to your face, or having 20 people standing outside a polling station with broken bottles and baseball bats. They are both intimidations, and the former certainly have happened. But the existence of the former doesn't imply the existence of the latter. Emotions need to be let out, and swearing is firmly in the free speech territory. The fact it did not turn violent is an extraordinary achievement.

It would be naieve to suggest there was no intimidation going on.