Scottish Referendum

[kylesmum]

Why do 'some' people think they're voting for/against Alex Salmond?

Is ignorance bliss?

Just curious...

[jeffa]

For the same reason that the electorate in 1979 voted for Thatcher and in 1997 voted for Blair. That's how it's always been.

[Gromit]

The media like to portray it as personalities and people who are ignorant of the merits of the case, happily go with that. See comments in the question below.

[kylesmum]

So ignorance is bliss then to some then.Worrying....for everyone ! No man is an island...

[agchristie]

Its a much bigger decision than on personalities. Im curious to know how the Scots are being helped to make their decision as Ive heard many people who just dont understand some of the complexities of certain issues...

[kylesmum]

TY Gromit...it's not until a Q is submitted that pertinent threads show unfortunately.

[kylesmum]

It would appear for better or for worse that this major decision seems to hinge on whether you like Alex Salmond or not. I'm a lurker and i've read some things which have made me shudder...

[KARL]

Does reading that the UK is a poor performer (on all the lists of societal performance from EU, OECD, UN, NOGOs, etc., etc.) and that within the UK Scotland is trapped and doomed to being "second class"make you shudder ? Or does the prospect of possibly outpacing the UK as an independent country strike you as a terrifying change ?

[jim360]

I think it's more profound than that for many people; AB isn't necessarily representative of the general population and I'm sure that a lot of people realise that the referendum is not a vote for or against the SNP. On the other hand it is very much their referendum: aside from some minor and/ or radical left-wing parties no major political party supports the "Yes" Campaign; and no two political figures are closer associated to the "Yes" Campaign than Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. So their personalities, and what the voters think of them, are inevitably going to colour the voters' opinions to some extent. In part this is why Alex Salmond has constantly tried to get David Cameron engaged in the debate. He figures that a Prime Minister who is by and large unpopular with the Scottish people will do the "Yes" camp no end of good. Which in turn is partly why Cameron has stayed out of it and left it to Alastair Darling, a Scottish MP, to lead the "No" Campaign.

Also, while a "Yes" vote would not of course mean a vote for the SNP to run the newly-independent Scotland, who would be leading the negotiations that follow? And who is most likely to head up the first government on a surge of personal triumph? In the early days at least it's surely clear that Scotland will be taken where Salmond and the SNP wish to go. While this should not be the deciding factor in anyone's decision, it's by no means irrelevant.

Most people made up their minds on Scottish Independence a long time ago, before even the opportunity to vote on it was made available. By about now, the remaining undecided voters are going to be swayed one way or the other by the tiniest factors; perhaps including which way their favourite Scottish celebrity is going to vote. On balance, basing the decision on your opinion of the single most important politician in the whole campaign is preferable to voting the way Sean Connery or JK Rowling say they will.

[anneasquith]

whichever way I vote, it will not be for alex salmons or indeed the snp. it will be/or not for independence for Scotland. for some reason on ab there is a misconception as to what Scotland is actually voting for. we have even had a comment re his ( A S ) university degree,,,,,,,,,,

[venator]

This reminds me of the referendum on the original vote to join the "Common market"

There was very little by way of hard facts. Heath said it was good, and there was hardly anything in the other camp.

We were sold down the river...

In the Scottish referendum, where are the hard facts?
Currency, border controls, admission to EU -

silence

[jim360]

I wasn't around for the earlier EU Referendum so I'm not sure what was said and what wasn't. In this particular case the problem with hard facts is that there really aren't any. Everything concrete will, in reality, be decided afterwards in the negotiations that follow. So that "Scotland's Future" paper, far from being hard facts, is more of a manifesto that will be taken into the negotiations and of which almost certainly some of it will have to be thrown out. Which bits stay and which go, who knows? Until there are talks about it, who can know?

And so this means that there are no "hard facts" of any note that are available, despite what either side says. My expectation would be that in large part the interests of Scotland and of the rest of the UK will be similar so that a lot of that document will be accepted; but there will have to be some concessions of some unknown form, and I highly doubt that Westminster will cede much ground on the issue of currency for example.

I don't see that there are any "hard facts" available. The best the "Yes" camp can offer is the promise to try to get certain things out of the negotiations; naturally the "No" camp isn't giving as much thought to that.

[venator]

Exactly, Jim - jump off the cliff and trust Alex to catch you...

I trusted Ted heath in a similar situation, and look what happened

[Obiter]

There was never a referendum on whether to join the Common Market. It was on whether we should remain members on the renegotiated terms of entry. This was a cynical domestic political ploy by the then Labour government in order to discredit the outgoing Conservative one. Although there were many distinguished politicians across the spectrum who campaigned for a No vote, the leadership of the main parties were in favour of a Yes vote. Those against were ridiculed much in the same terms as UKIP are today. The result was a foregone conclusion.

[mikey4444]

We have always been "person orientated" when it comes to politics in Britain.
That can be for or anti of course and in the case of Mr Salmond, I think it is most certainly anti. But he is the head of the YES campaign and therefore he who lives by the sword, must die by the sword I'm afraid.

[murraymints]

It's his lack of foresight, blinkered gung ho approach and the proposals that he is presenting that I am voting against..doesn't help he is a numpty and can't see the glaring obvious !

[EDDIE51]

To a large extent they are.
Salmond has very much made this his personal campaign he is so much the 'voice of the Yes vote' that most people associate him with Independence.
The SNP seems to have only 2 spokespersons Salmond and the even more ignorant Nicola Sturgeon neither show the SNP in a good light.

[mikey4444]

He simply hasn't made the case for Scottish Independence. If you take away all the tartan and Braveheart nonsense, you are left with nothing.

[EDDIE51]

^^ Totally agree, he is just saying 'vote with your heart not your head and let me make it up as we go along'

[mushroom25]

//whichever way I vote, it will not be for alex salmons or indeed the snp. it will be/or not for independence for Scotland.//

that is precisely the right reason to vote in this referendum; the decision could affect Scottish politics for centuries, yet there are those who would vote yes to "stick it tae Cameron", or vote no to do the same to Mr Salmond, two people who won't be playing an active role 20 years hence.

[KARL]

In religion there are those who simply don't want to listen to any argument that goes against their belief and emotions because that by definition is wrong. This is very much why those against independence keep harping on about the lack of proof (the default trumping of anything and everything). But as jim360 correctly points out, there is no such thing as proof on these matters, and along venator's lines this is a question of whether you believe politicians and other leaders will competently take society forward. As with venator, not everyone will be happy with the way things go and they will continue to voice their beliefs and opinions, just as there are still people who insist it has not been proven that the earth is not flat. That is life. What is utterly beyond dispute is that the UK scores unimpressively-to-poorly on listings of societal performance (everything from infant death, life expectancy and social equality to peacefulness and happiness). The prospect of the UK catching up with the leaders on such listings has to be seen as unlikely (the UK is falling on some) and Scotland will never affect the outcome in UK governmental elections which then dictates the way the UK is run. There is no sign evident, in any of the nations that have separated from others, of any desire to rejoin those former "co-countries" (or join any other) - and that is over, say, the past century or so whether the separation was violent or democratic. On the other hand most of them are on very good terms with each other. Independence not only works but is manifestly satisfactory - nobody says there are no mistakes along the way but they are their own mistakes, and that is an important improvement (as curious as that may sound to some). Size is significant in that the best listings performers are almost always smaller nations, large size gives rise to inertia, inefficiency and inability to react quickly and well to deal with problems and all the while the problems become entrenched and less soluble.

Scotland is about to choose between running all its own affairs or leaving that up to its neighbour. It can stay at its current status or aim higher, have some hope, imagination and even some optimism. I have no doubt at all that after independence the UK and Scotland will/would be on very good terms and sort it all out swiftly and amicably, including currency, border arrangements and a wholehearted support of a seamless integration internationally. If there is a No outcome then the UK will have a lodger who continually will be thinking of what might have been.

To me this is a no-brainer.