I never can quite understand this “swing” thing that comes up in talk of British politics. How does that translate to actual share of the vote?
I’m personally opposed to Scottish independence because 1) there is no real reason for disunion considering Scotland’s been more or less an equal partner with England for the last two centuries (although admittedly with the Jacobite risings, 18th Century Scotland wasn’t exactly treated well) and merely relates in duplication of various government functions wasting large amounts of money, 2) it encourages the trend of ethno-nationalism which is outdated in the 21st Century, 3) it’ll complicate things such as NATO and EU membership, and 3) it ensures that the Labour Party will not be able to regain a majority of the House of Commons in the next election.
It’s just a way to measure the change in support for parties or candidates from one election to the next. There’s various ways it’s calculated, but roughly:
Suppose in 2010 the Labour Party won the seat of Mallingford Rabbitspittle, with 45% of the vote, and the Conservatives were second with 35%. But this year we do an opinion poll that shows they are neck and neck at 40% each. Labour has lost 5% support, the Tories have gained 5% - aggregate these and the swing is 10% from Labour to Tory.
Wiki here.
But then if you just report the swing, that doesn’t tell us who is actually winning.
True, yes, but the swing is not normally all that’s reported. It’s just one part of the picture, and is supposed to indicate how views are changing.
So as reported upthread, there is a poll that suggests a swing towards a “Yes” vote, but it doesn’t tell us which side is likely to win the referendum vote unless we know where each side started.
This news excerpt might be just the thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31FFTx6AKmU
I actually agree with the Declaration of Independence, that political bonds long established should not be lightly cut. I’m generally not a fan of countries splitting up on nationalist lines, I think that’s lead to much worse situations in the world than countries that work to remain united across national lines.
This doesn’t apply just to Scotland but also issues like Puerto Rico, Quebec, Belgium, Spain and other countries with similar affairs.
If against all the good reasons a split doesn’t make sense, there is a strong compelling reason for a split then alright, go ahead and do it. But the mechanism shouldn’t be majority vote. It should instead be supermajority vote and I’d also require it to be multiple votes over time.
In that manner I think the way the thirteen colonies decided to vote on independence worked, because it was the result of elected representatives coming to a joint decision after great deliberation. I understand that in this day and age people insist on referendums, but my great fear with referendums is precisely the fear of mob rule that informed much of the decision making of America’s founding fathers. Referendums can be subject to flights of fancy in the polity, and for extremely important decisions I question the wisdom of using them.
However, if you’re going to go the referendum route, I’d say:
-
For a referendum to have happened, it should have been approved by some 2/3rds of the Scottish Parliament. I tried to find out what portion of the Scottish Parliament supported the referendum but couldn’t find it online, I just see that SNP holds slightly more than 50% of the seats. But to me a simply majority vote in the legislature is not a high enough bar for something so important.
-
After being approved by 2/3rds of the parliament, I’d say the referendum, for its Yes on Independence vote to be binding should firstly have a vote of at least 60% favoring independence and the total number of Yes votes should be equal to at least 50.1% of the total voting eligible population.
I don’t know how much of this was or is being followed in Scotland so maybe some of my recommendations are already in force, but what I definitely don’t like is the idea of a 300 year old political union coming to an end because a group with a slim legislative majority wins a slim vote majority in a referendum in which only half of voters or something come out to the polls.
What I also dislike is continual uncertainty. I think these things should be definitive, so for example I’d say if a referendum is held given all the above criteria and independence is passed, it should be required that the constitution of the remaining country (the UK) be modified such that it would be illegal to readmit Scotland, or if the referendum fails it should not be legal to hold another one for say, 50 years. I feel similarly to Puerto Rico, they either need to be a state or we need to add some degree of permanence to their status. I’m tired of it always being up for debate as to what Puerto Rico is or isn’t, same with Quebec.
The basic legal powers in order to hold the referendum were granted to the Scottish Parliament by an Order in Council, after discussions between Westminster and Holyrood. The subsequent Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, was passed unanimously.
Fuck that shit! Freedom for East Anglia! [bomb explodes in train station]
I like the idea. And I want to subscribe to their newsletter.
The Scots have one thing in their favor if they achieve independence, and it’s that they’re going at it politely; if it happens, it will be more along the lines of the amicable split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia than along those of the birth of the Republic of Ireland.
As for “we will be independent but things will be the same”, my job consists of changing the way people do things at work. Projects that last 9 months for the implementation team, a couple of years for the client company. And if I could get 1€ for every time I’ve heard someone:
- claim that “we won’t need to change anything about the way we do things”,
- refuse to even consider a proposed change in processes because “things must remain as before only better”,
- or complain that “this computer program isn’t like the old one!”
I’d be able to pay off my mortgage.
Thanks. What happens if the referendum passes with 51% of the vote? Does that mean Scotland becomes independent? Does it mean that negotiations begin? Or what?
FTR, my sentiments are similar to Martin Hyde’s, though I might make the argument a little differently.
I’d be interested to hear if there are any options for negotiations. It’s going to look bad for the “no” side if “yes” gets 50.1% and they say it’s not enough. I was under the impression that it was a straight majority vote.
I also agree (I think that’s what you’re saying, Measure for Measure) that it should take more than 50.1% agreement on a particular day, 300 years since the Acts of Union, to break that up and establish what is, effectively, a new country for the people living there.
Referenda are not binding under UK law, I don’t think, but I suspect there’s a “gentleman’s agreement” that a simple majority of votes cast will be sufficient.
It might have something to do with the devolution referendum in the 1970s, where the “Yes” side won the majority of votes cast, but the proposal was rejected because those “Yes” votes didn’t amount to a majority of eligible voters.
To a lot of Scots, that seemed, well, off, because in effect everyone who didn’t vote was deemed to have voted “No”.
If I were Scottish, I could not conceive of not voting in a referendum like this.
Are only *true *Scots going to be allowed to vote? And how are they defined?
Basically anyone registered to vote in Scotland on the date of the referendum will be eligible. So that would be British citizens (regardless of place of birth) and legally resident citizens of the EU and the Commonwealth, so for example my wife, who is a dual US/Canadian citizen with Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK, can vote. Also, 16 and 17 year olds can vote, which is an extension of the franchise as the voting age in the UK is normally 18.
Scots who are not currently resident in Scotland cannot vote.
As kind of a followup to my question about who will lead the new Scotland if independent, is there a large Jacobite element pushing for independence?
“We’re going to need a shit-ton of oatmeal!”
“And an equal amount of blue face-paint, laddie!”