How should the question of Scottish Independence be framed ?

Question

Yes or No ?

Or two options -Independent? Part of UK?

Or three to include further devolution ?

Also when should a ballot be held?

What franchise? ie all adults 16+ or the usual 18+

Oh and Robert I welcome your usual contribution - but don't go off target that much - all constructive criticism welcomed

Answer 1

@ Daniel, you say you live in Scotland the 3rd richest region of the Uk out of the 12 regions and only 1 of 4 to return its Budget, Can you explain why taxes raised and public spending currently generated In Scotland would not be enough and why it would not be the same after Independence. Do you understand economics? since 2001 the Uk has been in deficit except for one nation, Scotland who usually returns its budget.



"Scotland's public finances are in a healthy position, with the country generating more income than it spends even in a period of recession, official statistics published today show. This is the fourth year in a row that Scotland has generated a current budget surplus, compared to a UK-wide deficit over the same period."

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/06/23103654



I wold really like to know your take on economics, PM me if you have a serious answer please.



Then you say Scotland has nothing to sell, in comparison to other INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES in the world Scotland is in a very Strong position it has Farming, Fishing, Energy Sources, Aggregates, Gold Mines etc the list goes on and with global companies based in Scotland and Airlines already making plans for ICAO licenses in an Independent Scotland to keep International Airports in operation in Scotland.





Should be 1 question, I'm ok with the current one suggested but wouldn't be against it getting changed. Straight yes or no question though must be kept.



The ballot should be held when it was 1st suggested, the 2nd term of parliament. Why should Labour LIbs and Torrie's Dictate a referendum to Scotland when they had no intention of holding one? They are interfering in other party's policy's to suit their own agendas.



As for 16 years olds i am unsure i can see the good and the bad points, I believe that if you can join the army you should be able to vote for the people who are sending you to war and also in Scotland you can be deemed mature enough to get married at 16 but not able to vote. Although realistically how many 16 years olds could tell you the names of any political party's in the UK? I doubt any of them would even know what they re voting for and just vote for what their mates or parents vote for. I'm open to the idea, but if it goes ahead it must stay the same for all future elections.

Answer 2

The phrasing and order of the questions will be crucial to the outcome, hence the wrangling. A recent and, I think, fairly even-handed suggestion is:



TICK ONLY ONE BOX:



1. I agree Scotland should be an independent nation.



2. I agree Scotland should remain as part of the United Kingdom.





This would be the first page of the referendum. Whether there is a second page would depend on whether some kind of prospectus is published outlining a significant change to devolved powers (i.e. 'Devo Max'), but let's suppose that such an option does emerge. That question may read something like:



Do you agree that full fiscal powers should transfer to the Scottish Parliament?



YES / NO





People would vote on the alternatives on the first page, then vote on the proposal on the second page. If a majority votes in favour of the first option on the first page, then the vote on the second page is null. If, however, the second option on the first page is chosen then the vote on the second page (i.e. for or against 'Devo Max') would determine the final outcome.



A lot of people say a second question would confuse the issue but, hopefully, I've demonstrated this should not be the case. It's pretty straightforward and though there's a lot of resistance to a second question in the political classes opposing independence I believe it will happen, not least because it is appears to be the preferred option of the majority of people in Scotland and if the anti-independence group deny this golden opportunity to gain popular support for this favoured outcome then they run the risk of alienating their own supporters and driving them into the independence camp.



As regards the voting age, I strongly suspect it will be the usual 18+, though there is a good case for including 16+ in that this is not a election that takes place at regular intervals but a once in a lifetime (or once in a generation at least) decision that will impact on the long-term future of everyone.



As to when, I think it will probably go with the Scottish Government's preference of autumn 2014, and there's a good case for saying we need an extended and in depth debate about all the issues and implications. There's a decent argument for autumn 2013 in that it will focus the debate more intently (I don't buy the uncertainty line being spun) but the important thing is a fair, clear and even-handed process that brings a definite conclusion.



Whatever the outcome, I hope the debate truly engages the Scottish people in the political process and the relevance of democratic control and accountability to making a better country. No doubt we'll hear lots about the Darien Scheme or how Scotland is too craven or impoverished to make a success of independence but that kind of drivel - as exemplified by a couple of the respondents to your question - is unworthy of the serious democratic debate we need on the future of our country.



Hope this helps. It's going to be a great time to be Scottish.

Answer 3

Many people will kick up at this question, but those who turn aggressive are usually ignorant, unintelligent and unlikeable.



This question has obvious been asked alot lately and the real answer is Scotland can do what it likes, i personally believe that if the Scottish people wish to become independant of the United Kingdom then they can.



There are a few down sides though, the government at the moment are increasing the amount of people wishing for this to happen, and that is why they are waiting before puttin the vote across. The public that will turn the vote though are not actually thinking enough about what it will do to Scotland and the people living there, It will create loss of business, loss of money and loss of benefits, this happened before because Scotland cannot make enough money independantly, they have nothing to sell.



The pros for this cause of action though is the main reason it is being put forward in the first place, This will give the Scottish government the power to do as they wish, everytime Scotland goes to spend vasts amounts of money, westminster step in and decide if it is nesicary, if it isnt then westminster take the money back. This is seen with the tram shambles and the Glasgow Airport rail-link shambles.



I believe like most intelligent people who actually know something about economics that England can survive easily without the burden of financing Scotland, Scotland on the other hand will die without Englands Finance.



Before you all start talking shite though, I live in Paisley, just west of Glasgow, so i obviously aint against Scotland.

Answer 4

Thank you Lorne. As always I bow to your well intended and honest advice.

As though I would wander from the constraints and boundaries of your question.



Salmond and Sturgeon have both staked their political reputations on Scottish Independence sooner than they would have liked as they never in their wildest dreams expected the people to vote them in as the major Scottish power broker in the last elections.



The SNIP's (Scottish National Independence Party) just have to play for time so that they can put their branded message across to non enthusiastic independence Scottish voter.



Sturgeon and Salmond when you look at Scottish independence in the round must frame the Scottish Independence question in such a way that it personally looks like a victory for them personally whatever and whichever the Scottish people vote.Anything else and they are both finished in the political sense.



Objectives of what is best for the Scottish people as a whole is being gradually eroded into what is best for individual personal political profit as certain individuals objectives are no more than being placed on the same pedestal of Scottish history as William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.



My own views have always been that the independence issue ought to be decided on a straight 'Yes' or 'No' to Do you want to remain part of the United Kingdom?



The voting age ought to be kept to the 18year plus age groups.



What I have against further devolution for Scotland is that it means more money going up north and less being spent down south.



How's that Lorne?

Answer 5

It should be plain and simple, Yes or No. The age group should be 18 and over. However we all expect the usual political nonsense to be put on the form which will not only be confusing, but misleading.

Answer 6

you're suited, you're in problem! help for the SNP comes from all ranges of society. it is not in simple terms your working guy on the line that helps them, assorted center type human beings do besides.

Answer 7

Clearly. I think it should be held when Salmond says, he must have a good reason for that. I think young people should have the vote.

Answer 8

Should be in or out

Answer 9

Scotland should NOT be independant...



Why? Is this just another ignorance English bastard?



No, just research what happened the LAST time scotland was independant and WHY they're not any more.

Answer 10

You will tear everything to sh*t, Alex Salmond reminds me of Hitler a bit, he is also against homosexual marriage, f*ck that pr*ck.