General / Off-Topic Scottish Referendum Result. Post your thoughts here.

[beelbeebub]

This "FIX" sort of reaction was exactly what i was worried about. It's not good for healing the big wounds that have opened up.

That being said, I would like explanations for some of the issues raised by the FB campaign, to put the conspiracy to bed.

Things like the videos or claims that some votes were on incorrect ballot papers. But to counter the evidence of a rigged vote we do have significant evidence of a fair vote.

Video 1. Appears to be a lady swapping 2 papers from a yes pile with 1 paper from a no pile. Explanation - looks like she got muddled when piling papers, moved the papers to correct pile.

Video 2. Lady pulling an apparent ordered bundle from a box, if it was a ballot box they would probably be disorganised. Not 100% sure what explanation is for this. Was it a ballot box or was it simply a box used to securely transport already sorted papers?

Video 3. The infamous bundles of YES on a NO table. Already debunked, the piles were a mix of bundles awaiting counting that were waiting on a table that would eventually be used for the NO bundles.

Both the YES and NO camps had observers at every count and through out the process and none of them flagged anything.

The international press and observers all thought the vote was conducted properly.

The only observer who thought the vote was improper was the one from Russia. Personally I don't put much store by the claims of an observer from the country that also claimed the Crimean vote was free and fair.

Was a YES ever likely? Of the dozen or so polls conducted in the last week, only 3 or 4 ever showed a YES lead, and that lead was only ever amongst voters who were decided. Taking all the polls together the NO always had a lead amongst decided voters and the undecided were still 10-20% on polling day. There was a suspicion amongst pollsters that a large part of the undecided were actually NO who were embarrassed to 'come out'. A similar effect happened in the 92 election. Also the US 2012 election was supposed to be on a knife edge but ended up a comfortable Obama win. The only guy who called it right, said he simply looked at the aggregate of the polls which showed an Obama win, rather than seizing on the few polls that showed a Romney win.

The margin was some 400,000 votes. That's a hell of a lot of rigging to go on. Just destroying the real papers would be a massive task. The logistics of task would require hundreds of people who would have to be properly in on it. And all of these hundred people would have to be 100% leak proof. Not one slip up, not one bundle of papers found in a bin or ditch, not one word to a wife or husband.

The SNP and YES have conceded the result, do you thing AS would have conceded and then resigned if he had the slightest shred of evidence of fraud?

 

[ianw]

Yeah, but that's the problem. Prior to the referendum, the rules were set (by Westminster and agreed by the Scottish gov) that NO recounts would be allowed on a national level. Since the ballot papers have now likely been destroyed, the only option now would be a revote. Ain't nobody got time for that...

I predict here and now if the SNP win the next election in Scotland and the Scottish Greens make significant gains (the other pro-Yes party), there will be another referendum within 5 years. Not "a generation" as Salmond originally suggested.

Oh I don't doubt there'll be a second vote at some point.

But next time it won't just be the Scottish voters voting.

 

[jabokai]

And people love to dismiss it, even when the evidence is staring them in the face.

Anyway, the point is this is going to rumble on and on.

That's because the "evidence" is pish, typical conspiracy theory crap... the Daily Mail types just lap up that stuff!

 

[Surfinjo]

Yeah, but that's the problem. Prior to the referendum, the rules were set (by Westminster and agreed by the Scottish gov) that NO recounts would be allowed on a national level. Since the ballot papers have now likely been destroyed, the only option now would be a revote. Ain't nobody got time for that...

I predict here and now if the SNP win the next election in Scotland and the Scottish Greens make significant gains (the other pro-Yes party), there will be another referendum within 5 years. Not "a generation" as Salmond originally suggested.

You may well be right but I will suggest that the SNP, having caused so much trouble for the London Establishment, won't get back in.

In the run up to the next election, some SNP candidates will be accused, even arrested for various offences. Remember Tommy Sheridan.

At the election itself, the party will be decimated.

Following the election, the Labour party (Pink Tory) will announce that there is a huge black hole in Scottish Finances and everyone will have to suffer loosing this that and the next, plus tax rises. (All the fault of the SNP.).

Make no mistake, the queen was rattled. The 3 party leaders and the entire London press core arrived in Scotland in the last few weeks. World leaders, including Obama of all people, expressed their disapproval of Scots leaving the Union.

Now Cameron can get back to planning his mark on history and securing his own retirement fund by sending in British Troops, with Scots forces at the head, (as always), to murder a few hundred thousand Iraqis.

 

[beelbeebub]

Time is running out for an independent scotland

Independence relies on oil revenues, it is probable they will continue to decline.

In a generation, say 25 years, there may not be enough for scotland to strike out on it's own without facing a shortfall of some 10% the current budget, which is already some 10% in deficit, so a deficit of some 20% to continue running the current service levels.

iScot would need to cut it's services by 20%, raise takes by 25% current levels, or borrow 20% per year. Assuming no underwriting by the rUK i'm not sure iScot could borrow at that level.

I'm not sure even the most fervent nationalist would want independence kf the price was that high.

 

[QuantumTron]

Time is running out for an independent scotland

Independence relies on oil revenues, it is probable they will continue to decline.

In a generation, say 25 years, there may not be enough for scotland to strike out on it's own without facing a shortfall of some 10% the current budget, which is already some 10% in deficit, so a deficit of some 20% to continue running the current service levels.

iScot would need to cut it's services by 20%, raise takes by 25% current levels, or borrow 20% per year. Assuming no underwriting by the rUK i'm not sure iScot could borrow at that level.

I'm not sure even the most fervent nationalist would want independence kf the price was that high.

Well y'know, according to Professor of Economics, Andrew Hughes Hallett, and contrary to what a lot of English people are led to believe, Scotland actually subsidises the rest of the UK.

If that's the case, then if Scotland voted Yes last week, rUK would have been in a bit of a tiz financially - so no wonder there was a last minute attempt to frighten Scots into voting "No". (I was a Yes voter - so bitterly disappointed at all the fearties in my country.)

So bear in mind, when you're tlaking about Scottish oil, when that eventually runs out, rUK will also be in the deep doo.

 

[Surfinjo]

Time is running out for an independent scotland

Independence relies on oil revenues, it is probable they will continue to decline.

As an English resident, (born overseas), who's keenly supported the breakup of the UK since 1969,that is utter bunk.

Because it is one of the more overused clichés it seems to have taken on the status of truth in its own right, rather like the nonsense about currency.

Scotland has more than enough sources of earning to survive and prosper on its own.

More importantly, by governing itself, it can exploit its resources to its own greatest effect, instead of the current economic priority of supporting the pre-eminence of London as we are all obliged to do now.

 

[beelbeebub]

Well y'know, according to Professor of Economics, Andrew Hughes Hallett, and contrary to what a lot of English people are led to believe, Scotland actually subsidises the rest of the UK.

If that's the case, then if Scotland voted Yes last week, rUK would have been in a bit of a tiz financially - so no wonder there was a last minute attempt to frighten Scots into voting "No". (I was a Yes voter - so bitterly disappointed at all the fearties in my country.)

So bear in mind, when you're tlaking about Scottish oil, when that eventually runs out, rUK will also be in the deep doo.

You are right, that the reduction and eventual loss of oil will be a negative for the UK, but as they are a small proportion of the total tax take it is less of a blow than it would be to iScot.

As for Scotland over or underpaying it's way, it all comes down to how to apportion spending.

The figures from the UK treasury (these are from memory, so i might be out a little, please feel free to correct)

• Scotland population 8.2% of UK
• Scotland tax contribution without geographic oil ~8.2%
• Scotland tax contribution with geographic oil ~9.3%
• Spending on behalf of Scotland ~9.5%

Starting with what Scotland contributes in the way of taxes. The figures above for tax take should be pretty solid as breaking down tax income by nation of origin is pretty straight forward.

Excluding oil, Scotland pays about the same tax per head as the rest of the UK. Not hugely surprising, the economies are fairly similar and the tax regime is the same (the Scottish parliament having not taken the option to raise additional income tax).

Including oil, the scots do, indeed, contribute more tax per head than the uk average.

However, the proportion of the uk spending that is spent on scotlands behalf is pretty much the same as the proportion of the income that scotland contributes.

Because the uk runs a deficit of around 10% that means for every £1.00 scotland contributes (including the oil due scotland) scotland receivers £1.10.

The "on behalf of" is the tricky bit, Prof Hallet makes the specific point of calling out defence spending. 2.8bn is the proportion of the uk's approx. 35bn defence budget applicable to scotland using the 8.2% population share. He argues that only 2bn is spent in scotland so that is all that should be attributed. K would argue that is an unfair assumption.

Not every pound spent on behalf of scotland has to be spent on scotland. For example Uk embassies provide services for scots abroad yet the money is not even spent in the uk.

I have not been burgled or assaulted (touch wood) and therefore have not needed the services of the police. Should i then claim that the money spent on the police is not being spent on me? Clearly not. Some services have to be collectively paid for and considered collectively spent.

So the above, scotland contributes as much as is spent on it, would seem to point that scotland could go independent and things would be pretty much as they are now. This is true except...

• The oil will run out, leaving scotland down below the current level of income
• Part of the current income is borrowing which could be higher for iScot than for rUk

 

[beelbeebub]

As an English resident, (born overseas), who's keenly supported the breakup of the UK since 1969,that is utter bunk.

Because it is one of the more overused clichés it seems to have taken on the status of truth in its own right, rather like the nonsense about currency.

Scotland has more than enough sources of earning to survive and prosper on its own.

More importantly, by governing itself, it can exploit its resources to its own greatest effect, instead of the current economic priority of supporting the pre-eminence of London as we are all obliged to do now.

I assume you mean the cliché that scotland can't survive without the oil revenues.

Scotland could survive, but the YES campaign calculations depended on the oil revenue been above a certain level, if the revenue dropped below a certain level then iScots would need to tax more and/or spend less.

Sadly Scotlands old industrial main stay of heavy industry, doesn't seem to work well in the current economic climate, until the developing nations catch up to us heavy industry seems better suited to them. Once the playing field levels again, then europe can compete on an level playing field with them.

Of course scotland has many other industries to rely on, electronics, software, light industry etc.

Whether scotland would do better outside or inside the union is a tricky question dependent on many factors, not least how you measure "better".

 

[QuantumTron]

I assume you mean the cliché that scotland can't survive without the oil revenues.

Scotland could survive, but the YES campaign calculations depended on the oil revenue been above a certain level, if the revenue dropped below a certain level then iScots would need to tax more and/or spend less.

Sadly Scotlands old industrial main stay of heavy industry, doesn't seem to work well in the current economic climate, until the developing nations catch up to us heavy industry seems better suited to them. Once the playing field levels again, then europe can compete on an level playing field with them.

Of course scotland has many other industries to rely on, electronics, software, light industry etc.

Whether scotland would do better outside or inside the union is a tricky question dependent on many factors, not least how you measure "better".

You forgot to mention "whisky"

I reckon the same concerns you outlined in your last two replies, are applicable to every country on the planet. Resources will run out - some quicker than others - oil for example.

For that reason, my opinion is that the question of life of resources is a moot point, as far as an independent Scotland is concerned.

At the moment, the Earth is a closed system economy. We are using up the resources we have on the planet as a necessity of surviving as a species. We need to find new resources, new ways of generating the energy we need - we're already looking into that by way of renewables, fusion research and so on.

Eventually, we'll have to start looking for new resources outside of this closed system, and that means mining for Stuff beyond the boundaries of the planet.

So I reiterate - concerns about oil running out for iScot are moot as everywhere will be in the same boat given enough time. It is short-term thinking to have oil as one of the major reasons for not having iScot.

 

[Surfinjo]

Whether scotland would do better outside or inside the union is a tricky question dependent on many factors, not least how you measure "better".

With respect, it isn't a matter of Scotland but everyone else.

The moment the voting was over, Cameron goes back to the US to finalise plans for the next big war.

Many decent ordinary people will die, mostly in the ME. Our countries will pay trillions and Cameron/Obama will get the the sort of retirement funs currently enjoyed by Blair/Bush.

That's what the UK is, a war machine. It serves no other useful purpose.

It was established, 300 years ago, as a war machine. At one point, it conquered the world. Things haven't changed. The Oxbridge ruling elite still has aspirations to dominate, to be important.

Breaking up the UK is about us and having a government what puts us first, not some war venture.

 

[Surfinjo]

It begins:

16:59: 'Contempt'

East Lothian Labour MSP Iain Gray says the 55% of the vote who backed retaining Scotland as part of the UK must be heard and "we must accept their decision or we treat them with contempt".

Mr Gray says "it is quite wrong to say 'No' voters were tricked by promises of new powers" adding it could easily be said the 'Yes' campaign had tricked the voters over exaggerated oil revenues and promises.

So, there you have it Scotland. Never mind about any promises. Get back in line, remember your place and get ready to kill people so Great Britain can be Great again!!

 

[gunbladelad]

• Scotland population 8.2% of UK
• Scotland tax contribution without geographic oil ~8.2%
• Scotland tax contribution with geographic oil ~9.3%
• Spending on behalf of Scotland ~9.5%

You got the last two figures mixed up - Scotland pays 9.5% of the UK tax and gets 9.3% back.

In regards to the oil - you may wish to check the BBC website - For the month leading up to the referendum, it (and almost every other mainstream media outlet) was predicting that the oil was virtually gone - yet today, so-called "new technology" has suddenly been announced (despite having been in use for years) that will prolong the life of the fields immensely.

It's no wonder that a lot of people in Scotland are extremely annoyed with the Westminster parties and the mainstream media - and I'm not just referring to the 44.7% who voted "yes" - of which I freely admit I was one.

On a side-note, those of you who wonder why Scotland has distrusted England & Westminster all this time, I suggest you do a little websearch on the Darien Scheme. A little piece of history that Westminster likes to pretend never happened when they go on about the past 300 years of the UK being a a "family of nations"

 

[Zplintz]

No, and don't call me Shirley.

Check the site. These people seem quite serious.

They might seem quite serious but that doesn't what they say is true or even genuine.

 

[beelbeebub]

You got the last two figures mixed up - Scotland pays 9.5% of the UK tax and gets 9.3% back.

Using the Scottish Government figures from here the figures look like this.

• Scotland share of UK pop ~8.2%
• Scotland tax take inc per capita oil revenue ~£48bn ~8.2% UK total revenue
• Scotland tax take inc geographic oil revenue ~ £53.1bn ~ 9.1%UK total revenue
• Scotland public spending ~£62.5bn ~9.3%UK total spend

However, the point is that the public spend on scotland and the tax take inc geographical oil are similar (within a few 1/10ths of a percent).

So the Scottish Governments own figures refute the concept that Scotland gets much less back than it puts in (or that Scotland gets more than it puts in).

In regards to the oil - you may wish to check the BBC website - For the month leading up to the referendum, it (and almost every other mainstream media outlet) was predicting that the oil was virtually gone - yet today, so-called "new technology" has suddenly been announced (despite having been in use for years) that will prolong the life of the fields immensely.

Oil reserves are a slippery thing to estimate. How much left is a function of oil price. If oil dropped to $10 a barrel tomorrow (say cold fusion was finally cracked) the oil economically extractable from Scotland's fields would be zero.

On the other hand, if oil shot to $1000 a barrel, the number of economically extractable barrels would be huge.

This news is simply that a Scottish university has developed another Enhanced Oil Recovery technique to try and squeeze more oil from fields that are currently (or soon will be) exhausted. More investment will be needed to perfect the technique, then equip the oil rigs with the correct equipment.

As oil gets more expensive, more oil will keep getting found, but that still means oil production will probably keep falling, as it has done since the late 90's

It's no wonder that a lot of people in Scotland are extremely annoyed with the Westminster parties and the mainstream media - and I'm not just referring to the 44.7% who voted "yes" - of which I freely admit I was one.

On a side-note, those of you who wonder why Scotland has distrusted England & Westminster all this time, I suggest you do a little websearch on the Darien Scheme. A little piece of history that Westminster likes to pretend never happened when they go on about the past 300 years of the UK being a a "family of nations"

I don't think bringing up 300 year old grudges is a sensible thing to do. So 300 years ago two countries were nasty to each other. Big deal. On that rationale the list of nations the English shouldn't trust, because they wronged our ancestors, would include:

• France
• Scotland
• Germany
• Italy
• Spain
• Portugal
• USA
• Denmark
• Japan
• Holland
• Austria
• Turkey

I'd kind of hope that we've all grown past that.

 

[Surfinjo]

They might seem quite serious but that doesn't what they say is true or even genuine.

No, but by that logic, it doesn't mean you are either, or me.

 

[Juniper]

Oh I don't doubt there'll be a second vote at some point.

But next time it won't just be the Scottish voters voting.

No, I would expect that there would also be a vote for English & Welsh parliaments for English and Welsh voters.

Scotland's affairs are her own. A stacked deck is why we are in this mess to begin with.

 

[Zplintz]

No, I would expect that there would also be a vote for English & Welsh parliaments for English and Welsh voters.

Scotland's affairs are her own. A stacked deck is why we are in this mess to begin with.

Seems a shame that The English and Welsh didn't get to vote on whether they wanted to keep Scotland part of Great Britain.

(I was kidding btw)

 

[Surfinjo]

No, I would expect that there would also be a vote for English & Welsh parliaments for English and Welsh voters.

Scotland's affairs are her own. A stacked deck is why we are in this mess to begin with.

And that's when the mess really will begin to stink.

Bet they still find the funds for a kick ass military.

 

[beelbeebub]

The defence budget is some £35-40bn a year, half the NHS budget, a quarter the social budget, about one twelfth the total budget.

Well down on the cold war budgets.

Less than the deficit, so cutting all defence spending would still leave us in deficit.