Scotland says 'No'/Salmond stands down (Merged)

[Mibbes Aye]

Wait, what? So not a single person who voted for independence just simply wanted a fairer country? They are all rampant nationalists who foam at the mouth waving a saltire? That's basically what you're implying.

That's nothing like what he said or implied.

'Foam at the mouth'? Come on.

[ronaldo7]

No, someone voting for independence makes them a nationalist in my book - and apparently in the book of all these Yes people saying that 45% of those who voted want independence.

I guess my voting No makes me - in your eyes - whatever you believe No voters to be. I don't get the Red/Blue/Purple voter reference I'm afraid.

You wouldn't. You're all the same. Labour/Tory/Ukip.

[Mibbes Aye]

Wait, what? So not a single person who voted for independence just simply wanted a fairer country? They are all rampant nationalists who foam at the mouth waving a saltire? That's basically what you're implying.

Incidentally, I wanted a fairer Scotland too and thought 'No' was the better choice. I was far from the only one I assume.

Don't try and own 'fairness' or 'social justice' for the Yes side, there's not enough to evidence that as Thursday showed.

[Mibbes Aye]

You wouldn't. You're all the same. Labour/Tory/Ukip.

You're better than this, I do believe that.

[One Day Soon]

Wait, what? So not a single person who voted for independence just simply wanted a fairer country? They are all rampant nationalists who foam at the mouth waving a saltire? That's basically what you're implying.

If you have a better definition of a nationalist than someone who supports independence I'd like to hear it. They may vote for it because they believe it will lead to a fairer country, but they are still voting for independence.

[marinello59]

If you have a better definition of a nationalist than someone who supports independence I'd like to hear it. They may vote for it because they believe it will lead to a fairer country, but they are still voting for independence.

I voted Yes and I am certainly no Nationalist. I believe that bringing power closer to the people brings a greater chance of us improving our lives . Nothing to do with nationalism.

[ronaldo7]

No, someone voting for independence makes them a nationalist in my book - and apparently in the book of all these Yes people saying that 45% of those who voted want independence.

I guess my voting No makes me - in your eyes - whatever you believe No voters to be. I don't get the Red/Blue/Purple voter reference I'm afraid.


You're better than this, I do believe that.

He will continue to get pulled up for making those kind of statements.

[One Day Soon]

You wouldn't. You're all the same. Labour/Tory/Ukip.


I see now. That's pretty childish, if you had used the Party labels it would have been clearer.

I'm still no clearer on how you regard your own politics. Clearly none of the parties above but you didn't exclude Lib/Dem.

Do you disagree with my view on people voting for independence being nationalists?

[Peevemor]

Scottish Parliament? Windfall tax on banks to pay for modern apprenticeships? Massive increase in overseas aid? Foxhunting ban?

Whilst I was as emotional as anyone else when we voted 75 - 25 for the Scottish Parliament, for me it was a straightforward replacement for the tier of local government that had been done away with a year or two previously (regions). I also have my doubts whether it would have happened if they thought that the SNP would take control fairly shortly thereafter. As for the parliament building itself - what a shambles (not the architecture but the way the project was set up from the outset).

Windfall tax - hey ho, labour tax rich people - radical stuff!

Foreign aid - all well and good, although unfortunately labour left the country in the financial keechin.

Foxhunting - again all well and good but, like the bank bosses, an easy, populist target.

[The_Exile]

Incidentally, I wanted a fairer Scotland too and thought 'No' was the better choice. I was far from the only one I assume.

Don't try and own 'fairness' or 'social justice' for the Yes side, there's not enough to evidence that as Thursday showed.

Fair enough, if you genuinely believe we can build a fair and prosperous society under current conditions then I respect your optimism. I respectfully disagree that that can be achieved under what is basically permanent austerity, with the news of a further £37billion of cuts over the first 3 years of the next parliament.

[One Day Soon]

I voted Yes and I am certainly no Nationalist. I believe that bringing power closer to the people brings a greater chance of us improving our lives . Nothing to do with nationalism.

Ok, so what is the definition of a nationalist if it isn't someone who votes for independence? I get that you can vote for Indy and then the day after it is achieved you can peel off to another political perspective. But if you're supporting independence up to at a stage where we don't have it what else is there that qualifies you as a nationalist other than that? :confused:

[One Day Soon]

He will continue to get pulled up for making those kind of statements.

Really? I'd genuinely like to understand why?

[The_Exile]

Ok, so what is the definition of a nationalist if it isn't someone who votes for independence? I get that you can vote for Indy and then the day after it is achieved you can peel off to another political perspective. But if you're supporting independence up to at a stage where we don't have it what else is there that qualifies you as a nationalist other than that? :confused:

How would you describe someone who voted No because they thought it would be the best thing for Scotland? Are they technically not displaying "Nationalist" behaviour?

[One Day Soon]

Whilst I was as emotional as anyone else when we voted 75 - 25 for the Scottish Parliament, for me it was a straightforward replacement for the tier of local government that had been done away with a year or two previously (regions). I also have my doubts whether it would have happened if they thought that the SNP would take control fairly shortly thereafter. As for the parliament building itself - what a shambles (not the architecture but the way the project was set up from the outset).

Windfall tax - hey ho, labour tax rich people - radical stuff!

Foreign aid - all well and good, although unfortunately labour left the country in the financial keechin.

Foxhunting - again all well and good but, like the bank bosses, an easy, populist target.


Well, there is no danger we are going to get anywhere near to agreeing on this one. I'd trade any one of those for the Labour for Indy statement.

[Mibbes Aye]

He will continue to get pulled up for making those kind of statements.

I was commenting on the 'Labour are the same as UKIP are the same as the Tories' line. Parties are only parties if they have members and most of the members of those three parties would quite clearly not identify with each other.

It might be your view, but it's pretty sweeping to generalise about hundreds of thousands of people when it seems obvious that there will be Labour members in Shettleston who are in complete disagreement with Beaconsfield Tories or UKIP voters in Hastings.

[One Day Soon]

How would you describe someone who voted No because they thought it would be the best thing for Scotland? Are they technically not displaying "Nationalist" behaviour?

That's a good question. I wouldn't describe them as nationalist because they aren't voting for independence. I guess I'd describe them as patriotic.

[ronaldo7]

I see now. That's pretty childish, if you had used the Party labels it would have been clearer.

I'm still no clearer on how you regard your own politics. Clearly none of the parties above but you didn't exclude Lib/Dem.

Do you disagree with my view on people voting for independence being nationalists?

Thought you could have at least followed your party colours but they must get discoloured in a way you all get intermingled these days:wink:

Red and Blue mixed will give you Purple, whatever way you cut it.

[Peevemor]

Well, there is no danger we are going to get anywhere near to agreeing on this one.

No. :wink:

[over the line]

How would you describe someone who voted No because they thought it would be the best thing for Scotland? Are they technically not displaying "Nationalist" behaviour?

Not really, nationalists want independence by definition.

[The_Exile]

That's a good question. I wouldn't describe them as nationalist because they aren't voting for independence. I guess I'd describe them as patriotic.

What's the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? They're the same thing as far as I'm concerned in that both are looking for the best for their country, certainly in the context of recent events.

[One Day Soon]

Thought you could have at least followed your party colours but they must get discoloured in a way you all get intermingled these days:wink:

Red and Blue mixed will give you Purple, whatever way you cut it.


I'll give you credit for consistently trying to be offensive without engaging in any meaningful discussion. I don't understand why you are so shy about being open on your own politics.

[One Day Soon]

What's the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism? They're the same thing as far as I'm concerned in that both are looking for the best for their country, certainly in the context of recent events.

Nope. You can be patriotic without being nationalist. And you can be patriotic and be nationalist, but you do not have to be both.

[Mibbes Aye]

Fair enough, if you genuinely believe we can build a fair and prosperous society under current conditions then I respect your optimism. I respectfully disagree that that can be achieved under what is basically permanent austerity, with the news of a further £37billion of cuts over the first 3 years of the next parliament.

Don't get me wrong. The financial climate affects us whatever we voted for, we live with it and it makes it harder to reduce inequality, much, much harder.

We're not going to be building a prosperous society for a few years, regardless of who is in power. 'Fairness' is subjective, but if it's about narrowing inequality then my view isn't based on optimism, it's based on a cold, calculating view of what's going on.

The party that wanted independence hasn't done anything redistributive, quite the contrary, despite having the power to make the right choices for the last seven years. it's inflicted regressive taxation on us that has a double-hit on the poorest and most vulnerable. It's also made a policy point around reducing tax on business profits. How does that make us fairer?

[ronaldo7]

Ok, so what is the definition of a nationalist if it isn't someone who votes for independence? I get that you can vote for Indy and then the day after it is achieved you can peel off to another political perspective. But if you're supporting independence up to at a stage where we don't have it what else is there that qualifies you as a nationalist other than that? :confused:

Is it only on this thread that you accuse people of being Nats whereas on other threads it's ok to have voted for Independence but not to be a Nat?

[One Day Soon]

Don't get me wrong. The financial climate affects us whatever we voted for, we live with it and it makes it harder to reduce inequality, much, much harder.

We're not going to be building a prosperous society for a few years, regardless of who is in power. 'Fairness' is subjective, but if it's about narrowing inequality then my view isn't based on optimism, it's based on a cold, calculating view of what's going on.

The party that wanted independence hasn't done anything redistributive, quite the contrary, despite having the power to make the right choices for the last seven years. it's inflicted regressive taxation on us that has a double-hit on the poorest and most vulnerable. It's also made a policy point around reducing tax on business profits. How does that make us fairer?


Careful now....

[Mibbes Aye]

How would you describe someone who voted No because they thought it would be the best thing for Scotland? Are they technically not displaying "Nationalist" behaviour?

Pragmatic?

[Peevemor]

I don't really care about this "nationalist" label thing. I'm not even sure if it's meant to be a put-down or a complement (compliment?) but, just for fun, an English patriot living and working in Scotland who voted Yes for independence - what are they called then?

[The_Exile]

Nope. You can be patriotic without being nationalist. And you can be patriotic and be nationalist, but you do not have to be both.

Sure Nationalism is defined in the dictionary as along the lines of "patriotic feelings, principles etc", I think what's muddying the waters is the term "Scottish Nationalism", of which I have no idea who coined this term, it's not one I particularly like, or indeed a lot of people who voted Yes don't like the term either. I would describe myself as a proud Scot who is also patriotic. That would cover a lot more than 45% of the electorate aswell I'm willing to bet. Anyway, I respect your opinion, although looks like we'll need to agree to disagree :thumbsup:

[One Day Soon]

Is it only on this thread that you accuse people of being Nats whereas on other threads it's ok to have voted for Independence but not to be a Nat?


What does that mean? I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that I cannot think of another or a better definition of a nationalist than someone who votes for independence.

Its not like I'm saying its evil to be a nationalist. If you don't have a plural politics then your democratic system is basically screwed so a range of different and differing political perspectives is as important as it gets.

[over the line]

I don't really care about this "nationalist" label thing. I'm not even sure if it's meant to be a put-down or a complement (compliment?) but, just for fun, an English patriot living and working in Scotland who voted Yes for independence - what are they called then?

Lost? ;)

[Mibbes Aye]

Careful now....

Fair point. I understand you had some difficulty in getting an answer when you asked what the SNP governments had done that was redistributive.

Not to worry though :wink:.

If anyone challenges me on the veracity I'm going to ask them about an SNP Council Tax freeze that double-penalises the poorest.

Nobody will see that coming :agree: :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

I don't really care about this "nationalist" label thing. I'm not even sure if it's meant to be a put-down or a complement (compliment?) but, just for fun, an English patriot living and working in Scotland who voted Yes for independence - what are they called then?

For me that's a nationalist. Its neither a put down nor a compliment. Words do have to mean something though otherwise debate is meaningless. I'd like to hear a better definition of a nationalist?

[RyeSloan]

Lost? ;)

Conflicted? ;-)

[ronaldo7]

What does that mean? I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that I cannot think of another or a better definition of a nationalist than someone who votes for independence.

Its not like I'm saying its evil to be a nationalist. If you don't have a plural politics then your democratic system is basically screwed so a range of different and differing political perspectives is as important as it gets.

Not really.

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?290188-Ian-quot-I-m-an-MP-quot-Murray

Post 24

I believe the poster in question has been vociferous in his voting intentions for Yes on here, and yet you seem to think he's not a Nat. Whilst on other threads, if someone posts against the Labour party they are immediately cast as a Nationalist.

Double standards or just that he has clout:wink:

[#FromTheCapital]

For me that's a nationalist. Its neither a put down nor a compliment. Words do have to mean something though otherwise debate is meaningless. I'd like to hear a better definition of a nationalist?

Imo a nationalist would describe someone who wants independence at any cost. Yes voters who decided they were voting yes before even looking at what was on offer for example.

[marinello59]

Ok, so what is the definition of a nationalist if it isn't someone who votes for independence? I get that you can vote for Indy and then the day after it is achieved you can peel off to another political perspective. But if you're supporting independence up to at a stage where we don't have it what else is there that qualifies you as a nationalist other than that? :confused:

I haven't peeled off to any new perspective. My views today are the same as they were yesterday and the day before.

[over the line]

Fair point. I understand you had some difficulty in getting an answer when you asked what the SNP governments had done that was redistributive.

Not to worry though :wink:.

If anyone challenges me on the veracity I'm going to ask them about an SNP Council Tax freeze that double-penalises the poorest.

Nobody will see that coming :agree: :greengrin

So tell us about this council tax freeze then, don't think its been mentioned has it?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding......... ;):)

[Peevemor]

Imo a nationalist would describe someone who wants independence at any cost. Yes voters who decided they were voting yes before even looking at what was on offer for example.

I think you're wrong. The "at any cost" bit is your own addition.

[Mibbes Aye]

So tell us about this council tax freeze then, don't think its been mentioned has it?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding......... ;):)

I'm glad you asked.

Where to begin.......:greengrin

[#FromTheCapital]

I think you're wrong. The "at any cost" bit is your own addition.

So what in your view is a nationalist?

[Stranraer]

He was an asset to the Scottish parliament. I am upset that he is stepping down and will always consider him a true Scottish hero.

[CropleyWasGod]

So what in your view is a nationalist?

Are we talking ethnic nationalism or civil nationalism? :greengrin

[Peevemor]

So what in your view is a nationalist?

I've never really tried to find a definition, but I'd say it's somebody who wants the best for his country although that probably isn't what the dictionary says.

What I disagree with in your definition is the "at any cost" bit. For me that goes too far.

[Mibbes Aye]

Are we talking ethnic nationalism or civil nationalism? :greengrin

:greengrin

In truth, I would welcome a standalone thread about this. There are folk on here from all persuasions who could contribute to a good debate.

From my perspective, it felt like civic nationalism was used as a guise for ethnic nationalism by some. Would be interesting to tease that out.

[One Day Soon]

Not really.

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?290188-Ian-quot-I-m-an-MP-quot-Murray

Post 24

I believe the poster in question has been vociferous in his voting intentions for Yes on here, and yet you seem to think he's not a Nat. Whilst on other threads, if someone posts against the Labour party they are immediately cast as a Nationalist.

Double standards or just that he has clout:wink:


Ok that's entirely my fault. I tend to use the term Nat with a capital N to mean actual SNP member and nationalist with no capital N to mean someone who supports independence. I accept that won't always have been clear.

I checked out the post on the thread you mentioned and it relates to Dave F. I'm intrigued as to what his clout is? Anyway what I was trying to say in my reply to him was that I wasn't assuming he was an SNP member.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

[Hibrandenburg]

I have to be honest, there's a lot of bitterness masquerading as comment on here.

Obvious 'No's like ODS have been posting and generally it's thought-out and evidence-based. I would hope that most of the time I'm the same. Occasionally I can post a bit more from an emotional basis, i'm sure that's true of other 'No' voters too.

From the 'Yes' side there's posters who have done the same and it's been cordial but still rigorous. That's all good, with something as important as this we should be testing and challenging each other's viewpoints.

Obviously some folk are very unhappy though and a few of them are showing that by just posting insults.

That's not on in my book. For those who are doing the petty and the personal, aand it's been happening across several threads on this site, it's maybe a case of either stepping away from the keyboard or just manning up and trying to change their posts into playing the ball instead of playing the man.

Wow, just wow. If you're going to look for nasty reactions to the referendum result then take a look outside in the real world instead of worrying about a few pro independence supporters posting naughty words on the internet.

Your post cannot be taken seriously whilst Unionist mobs have run riot in our largest city firing flares, surrounding wee lasses and stealing their flags whilst chanting provocative bigoted songs at them.

You seriously need to get a sense of perspective.

[JimBHibees]

Scottish Parliament? Windfall tax on banks to pay for modern apprenticeships? Massive increase in overseas aid? Foxhunting ban?

Pathetic governance of banks playing no small part in economic collapse. House of Lords reform, raiding of pensions, selling off of gold reserves, hiduja brothers, etc.

[theonlywayisup]

It is always difficult to predict the future. Many on this thread are, quite rightly IMO, predicting that the surge towards Independence will grow over the next few years. A minority saying it won't.

I can only draw similarities with my own view on this subject. At the time of the first devolution vote in the seventies, I was very much pro-independence. I was 16, the same age as those who got the vote for the first time, many of who support independence. Now roll on 35 years, I voted No as the Yes campaign failed to provide the valid reasons for separation. It was all a gut feel, a gamble. I think I have politically matured!

Contrast that with my older brother, who was a political activist in the Socialist Party. He was strongly against it in the seventies, but now voted Yes on Thursday because he wanted to break the Tory Westminster rule.

Who is to say whether there will be more people like I or like my brother in the coming years.

[Leith Green]

So what in your view is a nationalist?

If you look it up, it tells you a Nationalist is someone who advocates Political Independence for a country.

[johnbc70]

Your post cannot be taken seriously whilst Unionist mobs have run riot in our largest city firing flares, surrounding wee lasses and stealing their flags whilst chanting provocative bigoted songs at them.

You seriously need to get a sense of perspective.

Come on, everyone knows that was a bunch of Rangers fans and Bigots using the situation to their advantage.

There was a riot in Blackpool the other night (not my words the local paper) with hundreds of youths battling with police after a fireworks display. There are idiots all over the place who will use anything as an excuse for violence and to make out these thugs in Glasgow is something other than a bunch of bigots and Rangers fans is way off the mark.

[Hibrandenburg]

Come on, everyone knows that was a bunch of Rangers fans and Bigots using the situation to their advantage.

There was a riot in Blackpool the other night (not my words the local paper) with hundreds of youths battling with police after a fireworks display. There are idiots all over the place who will use anything as an excuse for violence and to make out these thugs in Glasgow is something other than a bunch of bigots and Rangers fans is way off the mark.

My point is that it's hypocritical to slate one side for calling people names on the internet whilst his brothers in arms are rioting.

During the campaign the actions of a small idiotic minority on the YES side was blown out of all proportion by the media and gleefully connected to the mainstream YES movement. What's good for the goose and all that.....

[lord bunberry]

Well of course. What ifs everywhere.

However here are my odds on those things happening:

Powers delivered: 100%
Remember 1997, Labour didn't screw about on the Scottish Parliament and they won't on this. If they deliver it they hoover back vast amounts of votes and territory. Scottish Tories need to be seen to deliver to capitalise on their recent resurgence. Lib Dems probably don't really matter unless its a coalition but their Scottish MPs need to bring some bacon home.

SNP losing majority control in Scot Parl: 80%
The nature of the electoral system virtually guaranteed this would happen anyway. Tiny swings create easily enough seat changes to get rid of the SNP majority. A resurgence from any one of Labour, Tories, Lib-Dems, Greens, SSP or UKIP will cost the Nats seats. More than one gets very messy for them.

Yes falling apart: 90%
We have parties here which fundamentally disagree on policy. The SSP alone are legendary for splitting and falling out with each other, never mind everyone else. People's Front of Judea stuff. The only thing they agreed upon was Indy and that was only because the Nats were in a position to hold a Referendum. eg The Greens core policy is creating a low carbon economy. Meanwhile the SNP want a second oil boom including developing west coast fields. Hydrocarbons don't attract these two together they repel. But more fundamentally, they are competing for the same groups of voters and I can assure you that Patrick Harvie won't be wanting to see his own job or Green representation in the parliament put at risk in order to serve the SNP core policy of independence. The same goes for the SSP.

It will at least be interesting though because now we will see the advent of real politics and the examination of real policy rather than the two years spent discussing constitutional change. Time to find out who is really serious about growing our economy, creating jobs, protecting the NHS and creating real opportunity for all - do those things and you aim a dagger at the heart of poverty while delivering social justice.

The major flaw in your argument is that you seem to be convinced that labour will win the general election next year and therefor be in a position to grant more powers to Scotland. I don't think they will, their lead in the polls needs to be much bigger at this stage than it is, there's always a swing back to the government as the election gets closer. We also have to consider the fact that they might not do as well in Scotland if they don't try and stick to the timetable set out by Brown.

[Jack]

Sorry but a load of nonsense. Scotland was a country at the start of the week and remains a country at the end of the week. People voted for the country of Scotland to remain in the UK and not become independent.

If you believe that then are you saying we have failed to be a country since the Union was signed 300 years ago?

Scotland wasn't a country at the start of last week and it wasn't a country at the end of the week


A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. Scotland does not meet all eight criteria; it fails on six of the eight criteria ...

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).

Yes, Scotland does have internationally recognized boundaries. Scotland is 78,133 square kilometers in area.

2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.

Yes, according to the 2001 census, Scotland's population is 5,062,011.

3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.

Somewhat. Scotland certainly has economic activity and an organized economy; Scotland even has its own GDP (over 62 billion pounds as of 1998). However, Scotland does not regulate foreign or domestic trade, the Scottish Parliament is not authorized to do so.
Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament is able to pass laws on a range of issues known as "devolved issues." The United Kingdom Parliament is able to act on "reserved issues." Reserved issues include a variety of economic issues: fiscal, economic and monetary system; energy; common markets; and trade and industry. The Bank of Scotland does issue money butit prints the British pound on behalf of the central government.

4. Has the power of social engineering, such aseducation.

Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament is able to control education, training, and social work (but not social security). However, this power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.

5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.

Somewhat. Scotland itself has a transportation system but the system is not fully under Scottish control. The Scottish Parliament controls some aspects of transportation, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbors while the UK Parliament controls railways, transport safety and regulation. Again, Scotland's power was granted by the UK Parliament.

6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.

Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to control law and home affairs (including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts) as well as the police and fire services. The UK Parliament controls defense and national security across the United Kingdom. Again, Scotland's power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.

7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.

No. The United Kingdom Parliament definitely has power over Scotland's territory.

8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.

No. Scotland does not have external recognition nor does Scotland have its own embassies in other independent countries.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm

[johnbc70]

Scotland wasn't a country at the start of last week and it wasn't a country at the end of the week

You can roll out official definitions all you like, in my mind and many others Scotland is a country. Go out and ask 100 people in the street is Scotland a country and I am sure many will agree.

[Jack]

Ok, so what is the definition of a nationalist if it isn't someone who votes for independence? I get that you can vote for Indy and then the day after it is achieved you can peel off to another political perspective. But if you're supporting independence up to at a stage where we don't have it what else is there that qualifies you as a nationalist other than that? :confused:

Being a nationalist doesn't make anyone a Scottish National Party supporter, follower, whatever.

I'm fairly certain there were many aligned to the other parties who voted for independence despite those parties unionist traits.

[Sergio sledge]

Scotland wasn't a country at the start of last week and it wasn't a country at the end of the week

I don't know where that definition comes from, but it doesn't really support the argument that Scotland isn't a country. It supports the argument that Scotland isn't an independent country, but then we all know that and no-one is arguing that. In fact the first line of your definition specifically refers to the fact that a country doesn't have to be independent to be a country.

A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status

[Jack]

I don't know where that definition comes from, but it doesn't really support the argument that Scotland isn't a country. It supports the argument that Scotland isn't an independent country, but then we all know that and no-one is arguing that. In fact the first line of your definition specifically refers to the fact that a country doesn't have to be independent to be a country.

A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status

Good point. The quote maybe should read 'To be a country'.

I think the definitions come from the UN, with some guys interpretation, not sure though.

[Pretty Boy]

Don't kid yourself, these are not and never were genuine Labour Party members. Labour for Independence is a put up job designed to look like Labour members peeling away to independence. If you checked in Labour Party circles no-one had ever heard of these people inside the party.

Polling showing up to 38% of traditional Lavour voters voted Yes.

Is that to be dismissed as well?

[One Day Soon]

Wow, just wow. If you're going to look for nasty reactions to the referendum result then take a look outside in the real world instead of worrying about a few pro independence supporters posting naughty words on the internet.

Your post cannot be taken seriously whilst Unionist mobs have run riot in our largest city firing flares, surrounding wee lasses and stealing their flags whilst chanting provocative bigoted songs at them.

You seriously need to get a sense of perspective.


That's disingenuous and classic diversion. We are debating on here and his post was about how that debate is conducted. You avoid that and spraff on about what's going on elsewhere instead.

There have been total idiots from what appears to be elements of The Rangers support and from the dafter wing of Yes both causing public disorder in George Square. They are both to be condemned. That doesn't excuse how we conduct our debate on here.

[One Day Soon]

Pathetic governance of banks playing no small part in economic collapse. House of Lords reform, raiding of pensions, selling off of gold reserves, hiduja brothers, etc.

You're getting confused, we were discussing whether any of the achievements of New Labour were worth more than the statement from 'Labour for Independence'.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That's disingenuous and classic diversion. We are debating on here and his post was about how that debate is conducted. You avoid that and spraff on about what's going on elsewhere instead.

There have been total idiots from what appears to be elements of The Rangers support and from the dafter wing of Yes both causing public disorder in George Square. They are both to be condemned. That doesn't excuse how we conduct our debate on here.

:kettle::faf:

The main driver in how we conduct debate on here seems to be your personal sensitivities. These are particularly vulnerable whenever someone makes a point that goes against your argument.

Good mannered debate should have room for wit, passion and colourful language. It's part of the process and we should be ready to give as good as we get.

Dodging and ignoring valid points, or failing to concede valid points that are made is the realm of politicians. Is it any wonder that people get agitated when fellow posters are guilty of that?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have to be honest, there's a lot of bitterness masquerading as comment on here.

Obvious 'No's like ODS have been posting and generally it's thought-out and evidence-based. I would hope that most of the time I'm the same. Occasionally I can post a bit more from an emotional basis, i'm sure that's true of other 'No' voters too.

From the 'Yes' side there's posters who have done the same and it's been cordial but still rigorous. That's all good, with something as important as this we should be testing and challenging each other's viewpoints.

Obviously some folk are very unhappy though and a few of them are showing that by just posting insults.

That's not on in my book. For those who are doing the petty and the personal, aand it's been happening across several threads on this site, it's maybe a case of either stepping away from the keyboard or just manning up and trying to change their posts into playing the ball instead of playing the man.

Its a fine line isn't it? Much of what we say on here is more robust than we would say in a pub, or in the office. That's part of the attraction of forums like ours - the chance to be extreme, but anonymous.

I think it's one thing to mock a persons opinion, and another to mock the person. When you do it face to face, then it's pretty much the same thing; when you do it in the cyber world, where we have made up names, and sometimes made up personas it's less harmful.

At the same time, our anonymity should make it easier to concede points to others - you can't truly lose face - and to apologise when we've gone too far.

It seems to me that we are living in very sensitive times. Times when we are unable to discuss things in the way that we used to. It's rare to hear a workplace or pub argument about politics these days.

The world we live in is becoming increasingly bland and unexciting. The Internet used to be a place where rules were more relaxed. Sadly, it is fast becoming subject to the same mores as mainstream society.

My basic rule for here would be "don't give it out if you can't take it back".

[Peevemor]

Its a fine line isn't it? Much of what we say on here is more robust than we would say in a pub, or in the office. That's part of the attraction of forums like ours - the chance to be extreme, but anonymous.

I think it's one thing to mock a persons opinion, and another to mock the person. When you do it face to face, then it's pretty much the same thing; when you do it in the cyber world, where we have made up names, and sometimes made up personas it's less harmful.

At the same time, our anonymity should make it easier to concede points to others - you can't truly lose face - and to apologise when we've gone too far.

It seems to me that we are living in very sensitive times. Times when we are unable to discuss things in the way that we used to. It's rare to hear a workplace or pub argument about politics these days.

The world we live in is becoming increasingly bland and unexciting. The Internet used to be a place where rules were more relaxed. Sadly, it is fast becoming subject to the same mores as mainstream society.

My basic rule for here would be "don't give it out if you can't take it back".

You think so? I "hold back" on here compared to face-to-face. The written word has much more gravity than a spoken throw away comment.

[Phil D. Rolls]

You think so? I "hold back" on here compared to face-to-face. The written word has much more gravity than a spoken throw away comment.

That could be true in some circumstances but not others. The major difference is insults on here can't be followed up with violence like they can in real life.

There is not the same requirement for self control when someone upsets us on here, and we can also rationalise the insult as being non personal, as they have no idea who we really are.

As I've said, if people can't take it back, they shouldn't dish it out.

[The Baldmans Comb]

You can roll out official definitions all you like, in my mind and many others Scotland is a country. Go out and ask 100 people in the street is Scotland a country and I am sure many will agree.

How many other "countries"do you know that need an endless debate to determine whether they exist or not.

Rise above yourself.Scotland is a pretend country that only exists in people's minds and has no basis whatsoever in international law.

[Phil D. Rolls]

How many other "countries"do you know that need an endless debate to determine whether they exist or not.

Rise above yourself.Scotland is a pretend country that only exists in people's minds and has no basis whatsoever in international law.

Also known as Erewhon.:agree:

[johnbc70]

How many other "countries"do you know that need an endless debate to determine whether they exist or not.

Rise above yourself.Scotland is a pretend country that only exists in people's minds and has no basis whatsoever in international law.

You and a few others are the only ones that seem to wish to contest it. In my mind there is no debate, Scotland is a country.

You think one way, I think another. Although again I would say you are in the minority with your thinking though not me.

If you were on holiday last year and some hot Spanish chick comes up to you and asks you what country you from I am guessing you would say I am from the UK?

[The Baldmans Comb]

You and a few others are the only ones that seem to wish to contest it. In my mind there is no debate, Scotland is a country.

You think one way, I think another. Although again I would say you are in the minority with your thinking though not me.

If you were on holiday last year and some hot Spanish chick comes up to you and asks you what country you from I am guessing you would say I am from the UK?

It would depend on the intelligence of the "hot Spanish chick" as "uhm fae Scotland" can sometimes lead to success or other times lead to a very knowing smile of those a little more widely read and travelled.

Scratch below the surface and European perspectives of Scotland aren't exactly what you might think.

Scotland is seen as a quaint curious wee place with friendly locals who are big and brave and loud at proclaiming how Scottish they are but who might not quite be the "Bravehearts" they pretend to be.

Everyone luvs the Tartan Army....for about half a day but if you then look around the locals they see what a complete bore they become.

To answer your question though then it would be Scottish to the wee daft senorita and British then Scottish to anyone else.

[JimBHibees]

You're getting confused, we were discussing whether any of the achievements of New Labour were worth more than the statement from 'Labour for Independence'.

Not getting confused at all. Just thought I would put up a few areas where Labour's apparently faultless period of government wasn't so much the case. Didn't mention illegal wars either.

I appreciate your default is to lionise Labour at all times including the win at all costs defence of the empire campaign just gone which in a lot of instances will have lost Labour to thousands for ever. As with when Blair and Brown in charge the party has lost any sort of moral compass.

The founders of the party must be spinning in their graves as would John Smith.

[One Day Soon]

Not getting confused at all. Just thought I would put up a few areas where Labour's apparently faultless period of government wasn't so much the case. Didn't mention illegal wars either.

I appreciate your default is to lionise Labour at all times including the win at all costs defence of the empire campaign just gone which in a lot of instances will have lost Labour to thousands for ever. As with when Blair and Brown in charge the party has lost any sort of moral compass.

The founders of the party must be spinning in their graves as would John Smith.


I don't think anyone on here has argued 'Labour's apparently faultless period of government'. It is not my default to lionise Labour at all times - I have plenty of criticisms of the party both politically and organisationally.

Your blind hatred seems to render you incapable of recognising anything they did as a worthwhile achievement however. And I think that your reference to a 'win at all costs defence of empire campaign' speaks more to your pain in losing than to anything accurate. It is really smug and myopic self obsession to believe that just because your opponents disagree with you they have no moral compass.

Unless you actually knew John Smith I suggest your views on what his thoughts would be are pretty distasteful. His widow seemed pretty clear what his view would have been when she spoke out during the campaign.

[JimBHibees]

I don't think anyone on here has argued 'Labour's apparently faultless period of government'. It is not my default to lionise Labour at all times - I have plenty of criticisms of the party both politically and organisationally.

Your blind hatred seems to render you incapable of recognising anything they did as a worthwhile achievement however. And I think that your reference to a 'win at all costs defence of empire campaign' speaks more to your pain in losing than to anything accurate. It is really smug and myopic self obsession to believe that just because your opponents disagree with you they have no moral compass.

Unless you actually knew John Smith I suggest your views on what his thoughts would be are pretty distasteful. His widow seemed pretty clear what his view would have been when she spoke out during the campaign.

Laughable response as per. You calling anyone else smug is the ultimate irony. ODS - odious right enough.

[One Day Soon]

Laughable response as per. You calling anyone else smug is the ultimate irony. ODS - odious right enough.


That's great, avoid the discussion and make personal attacks.

You're bang to rights on John Smith and you know it.

[johnbc70]

It would depend on the intelligence of the "hot Spanish chick" as "uhm fae Scotland" can sometimes lead to success or other times lead to a very knowing smile of those a little more widely read and travelled.

Scratch below the surface and European perspectives of Scotland aren't exactly what you might think.

Scotland is seen as a quaint curious wee place with friendly locals who are big and brave and loud at proclaiming how Scottish they are but who might not quite be the "Bravehearts" they pretend to be.

Everyone luvs the Tartan Army....for about half a day but if you then look around the locals they see what a complete bore they become.

To answer your question though then it would be Scottish to the wee daft senorita and British then Scottish to anyone else.

So not only you putting the Scottish down its the Spanish as well. So much hate.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You and a few others are the only ones that seem to wish to contest it. In my mind there is no debate, Scotland is a country.

You think one way, I think another. Although again I would say you are in the minority with your thinking though not me.

If you were on holiday last year and some hot Spanish chick comes up to you and asks you what country you from I am guessing you would say I am from the UK?

In my head i can think I'm a billionaire, but it doesn't make it true.

Next time there's an international summit, an eu summit, a un meeting or anything else that involves recognised countries, you point out to me where Scotland is and I'll concede that you are right.

Otherwise, you are just asserting that something is true and ignoring The FACT that you are wrong.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You and a few others are the only ones that seem to wish to contest it. In my mind there is no debate, Scotland is a country.

You think one way, I think another. Although again I would say you are in the minority with your thinking though not me.

If you were on holiday last year and some hot Spanish chick comes up to you and asks you what country you from I am guessing you would say I am from the UK?

Show her your passport....

What does that say incidentally?

[Mibbes Aye]

Wow, just wow. If you're going to look for nasty reactions to the referendum result then take a look outside in the real world instead of worrying about a few pro independence supporters posting naughty words on the internet.

Your post cannot be taken seriously whilst Unionist mobs have run riot in our largest city firing flares, surrounding wee lasses and stealing their flags whilst chanting provocative bigoted songs at them.

You seriously need to get a sense of perspective.

I'm just looking for good debate and it's perfectly appropriate to point out that some people don't seem able to engage in that without getting personal, and I've seen that on both sides.

To say that's not a valid or appropriate statement because of something that happened elsewhere doesn't stack up.

[johnbc70]

So much hatred on this thread now. Time to accept the decision and move on, get on with your lives.

[The Baldmans Comb]

So not only you putting the Scottish down its the Spanish as well. So much hate.

I can't see any hate whatsoever.

The Tartan Army are a friendly harmless bunch who bore people after a short while and Spanish or European girls aren't quite fooled by the "Ahm fae Scotland" tag.

Look around the European Union or the United Nations or the face of your "offficccceeel" passport and think of that the next time you chat up a "hot Spanish chick" as she might just be a lot smarter than you think.

[Jack]

You and a few others are the only ones that seem to wish to contest it. In my mind there is no debate, Scotland is a country.

You think one way, I think another. Although again I would say you are in the minority with your thinking though not me.

If you were on holiday last year and some hot Spanish chick comes up to you and asks you what country you from I am guessing you would say I am from the UK?

Once you get off the beaten Brit holiday and expat track you'd be surprised and probably dismayed.

People speak of England thinking its the same as speaking of the UK or Britain, dammit so do lots of English people. Scotland, if they've heard of it at all, is quite often part of England. Sad really.

Craig Hill was in the States promoting the Edinburgh Festivals. TV guy asked him where it was happening!

[Sergio sledge]

In my head i can think I'm a billionaire, but it doesn't make it true.

Next time there's an international summit, an eu summit, a un meeting or anything else that involves recognised countries, you point out to me where Scotland is and I'll concede that you are right.

Otherwise, you are just asserting that something is true and ignoring The FACT that you are wrong.

Scotland is represented at these summits through it's union with the rest of the countries in the UK.

I presume you don't class England or Wales as countries either?

If you are basing your definition of country on UN representation then I presume you don't count Kosovo or Taiwan as countries?

I voted yes, but this is just getting silly now. The referendum didn't ask, 'do you consider Scotland a country?' It asked, 'should Scotland be an independent country?' Voting no doesn't automatically turn Scotland from a country to a region, saying it does is just melodramatic IMHO.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Scotland is represented at these summits through it's union with the rest of the countries in the UK.

I presume you don't class England or Wales as countries either?

If you are basing your definition of country on UN representation then I presume you don't count Kosovo or Taiwan as countries?

I voted yes, but this is just getting silly now. The referendum didn't ask, 'do you consider Scotland a country?' It asked, 'should Scotland be an independent country?' Voting no doesn't automatically turn Scotland from a country to a region, saying it does is just melodramatic IMHO.

Taiwan is a slightly strange one, but kosovo no, wales is a principality as far as I know and england no, all part of the uk.

Fair enough, but it was implicit it in the question. A country that is not independent is, imo, by definition not a country.

How can scotland be a country if it is part of a bigger country, that makes no sense to me.

All.imo.

[Sergio sledge]

Taiwan is a slightly strange one, but kosovo no, wales is a principality as far as I know and england no, all part of the uk.

Fair enough, but it was implicit it in the question. A country that is not independent is, imo, by definition not a country.

How can scotland be a country if it is part of a bigger country, that makes no sense to me.

All.imo.

That is fair enough, it is your opinion, you stated earlier in the thread it was a fact though (I think it was you, apologies if not). The definition of a country is woolly to say the least, Kosovo and Taiwan are two examples, but there are others, the people of the North Caucuses in Russia for instance may well argue with your definition.

Personally I regard the UK as a union of countries, therefore I don't see the incompatibility of Scotland being a country in its own right but choosing to be in a union with other countries for whatever reasons. I don't want it to be, but that's the way it is.

I'd like to see the legal definition of a country though, I would assume the UN must have one... :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Its a fine line isn't it? Much of what we say on here is more robust than we would say in a pub, or in the office. That's part of the attraction of forums like ours - the chance to be extreme, but anonymous.

I think it's one thing to mock a persons opinion, and another to mock the person. When you do it face to face, then it's pretty much the same thing; when you do it in the cyber world, where we have made up names, and sometimes made up personas it's less harmful.

At the same time, our anonymity should make it easier to concede points to others - you can't truly lose face - and to apologise when we've gone too far.

It seems to me that we are living in very sensitive times. Times when we are unable to discuss things in the way that we used to. It's rare to hear a workplace or pub argument about politics these days.

The world we live in is becoming increasingly bland and unexciting. The Internet used to be a place where rules were more relaxed. Sadly, it is fast becoming subject to the same mores as mainstream society.

My basic rule for here would be "don't give it out if you can't take it back".

I hear what you're saying mate but you've not met me in the pub with a pint in me. :greengrin

I probably hold back on here coz I'm too lazy to type and probably wouldn't give a few of the posters on here the time of day in the real world because this is not a typical debate that strangers would get involved in.

Maybe that's a hole in the market that some publican could make a business out of. A pub where the tables are divided into different thread titles. **** being an admin there though.

[One Day Soon]

Polling showing up to 38% of traditional Lavour voters voted Yes.

Is that to be dismissed as well?


PB, meant to reply to this before now but lost where it was and only just rediscovered it.

I wouldn't dismiss the fact that 38% of Labour voters supported Indy, though I think that was one vote in a very specific context. Let's see where the opinion polling goes over the next few months which will be interesting.

What I would say is that the 'Labour for Independence' group, no matter how they try to portray it, were a put up job. I believe in fact that there were pics taken showing some of their reputed 'members' campaigning as SNP activists. I could be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure it is accurate. I have no doubt that there will be Labour voters willing or wanting to switch to SNP, but that doesn't make this charade of a group any more real.

[Dinkydoo]

How can scotland be a country if it is part of a bigger country, that makes no sense to me.

Scotland isn't part of a bigger country. We share an economy with England, Wales and NI along with being governed by a unitary state.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

[QUOTE=Sergio sledge;4177545]That is fair enough, it is your opinion, you stated earlier in the thread it was a fact though (I think it was you, apologies if not). The definition of a country is woolly to say the least, Kosovo and Taiwan are two examples, but there are others, the people of the North Caucuses in Russia for instance may well argue with your definition.

Personally I regard the UK as a union of countries, therefore I don't see the incompatibility of Scotland being a country in its own right but choosing to be in a union with other countries for whatever reasons. I don't want it to be, but that's the way it is.

I'd like to see the legal definition of a country though, I would assume the UN must have one... :greengrin[/QUOTE

Its my opinion, but it is a fact, thst is undeniable.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Scotland isn't part of a bigger country. We share an economy with England, Wales and NI along with being governed by a unitary state.

Eh? I dont really understand your point.

But again, I would ask you what the nationality on your passport is, or driving license?

[ronaldo7]

Ok that's entirely my fault.:aok: I tend to use the term Nat with a capital N to mean actual SNP member and nationalist with no capital N to mean someone who supports independence. I accept that won't always have been clear.

I checked out the post on the thread you mentioned and it relates to Dave F. I'm intrigued as to what his clout is? Anyway what I was trying to say in my reply to him was that I wasn't assuming he was an SNP member.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

So we have to look for whether you're posting with a capital or not:rolleyes:

It clears it up in as much as you have come back on here after the vote on Friday with your Red (note the capital R for Red Tory) tinted glasses on, and tried to do down anyone who had voted for Independence as a Nat.

Thanks for the heads up on your posting style though, I will be scouring your posts to see where the capitals appear in future.:aok:

[Peevemor]

PB, meant to reply to this before now but lost where it was and only just rediscovered it.

I wouldn't dismiss the fact that 38% of Labour voters supported Indy, though I think that was one vote in a very specific context. Let's see where the opinion polling goes over the next few months which will be interesting.

What I would say is that the 'Labour for Independence' group, no matter how they try to portray it, were a put up job. I believe in fact that there were pics taken showing some of their reputed 'members' campaigning as SNP activists. I could be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure it is accurate. I have no doubt that there will be Labour voters willing or wanting to switch to SNP, but that doesn't make this charade of a group any more real.

There's someone on here who has said he is part of LFI, why don't you ask him if it's a "put up" job.

[Dinkydoo]

Eh? I dont really understand your point.


You said: "How can Scotland be a country that is part of a bigger country"...

We arent part of a bigger country because the UK isnt a country.




But again, I would ask you what the nationality on your passport is, or driving license?

Yet I have a Scottish birth certificate.....weird.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You said: "How can Scotland be a country that is part of a bigger country"...

We arent part of a bigger country because the UK isnt a country.




Yet I have a Scottish birth certificate.....weird.

Realky, your birth cert states your nationality is scottish? I doubt that...

And you never answered what your nationslity is on yiur passport and dtiving licence?

And your going to have to explain to me how the uk is not a country?

[CropleyWasGod]

You said: "How can Scotland be a country that is part of a bigger country"...

We arent part of a bigger country because the UK isnt a country.




Yet I have a Scottish birth certificate.....weird.

Your birth certificate reflects the fact that there is a separate Registrar in Scotland.

[JimBHibees]

That's great, avoid the discussion and make personal attacks.

You're bang to rights on John Smith and you know it.

Nonsense I think John Smith had more integrity in his big toe than some of the shysters that currently parade in the red rosette. Foulkes, murphy, Reid, brown etc

[ronaldo7]

Looks like Tommy is preparing for another referendum in 2020, having booted the Labour party into touch in 2015.

UNITY FOR INDEPENDENCE STATEMENT (PERSONAL)

Over the last couple of days I have been inundated with thousands of facebook and twitter messages from disappointed YES supporters looking for a way forward. I am encouraged so many have decided to become politically involved and stay politically engaged. Leaving politics to the politicians is a recipe for poor governance.

Obviously I welcome those wishing to join my own party Solidarity. We have some of the best activists around and can be contacted at solidarityscotland.org New members are positive. However it is not enough.

What I am about to say is uncomfortable for a socialist like me. I oppose the SNP position on NATO membership, cutting corporation taxes for big businesses, retaining the Queen as a head of State, sharing sterling and other policies. BUT in order to maximise the pro-Independence vote in next May's General Election I believe all YES supporters should vote for the SNP and all other pro-Independence parties should not stand if the SNP candidate will commit to fight for a new Referendum as soon as possible AND against all Westmonster austerity cuts to welfare and public services.

In other words I suggest we in the YES Movement promote continued unity by backing the most likely Independence supporting candidate at next May's election. In concrete terms that means advocating an SNP vote to try and unseat as many pro-NO party supporters as possible. Let's punish the reactionary and dishonest NO parties at the ballot box next May. Let's punish the shameful Labour Party in particular for siding with the Bankers,Bosses, Billionaires and Millionaires to try and crush our dream of a new and better Scotland with an avalanche of fear and lies.

The Holyrood elections in 2016 allow for more socialist, green and diverse candidates to be elected. The Westmonster system doesn't. If SNP candidates commit to fighting for a new Referendum and against austerity cuts let's unite behind them. If successful then we should insist all pro-Independence candidates in the 2016 Scottish election commit to a March 2020 Referendum. This magnificent movement for independence and change can continue and grow. We have youth, energy and hope on our side. Hope can triumph over Fear in 2020. I realise some socialists will find it difficult to support SNP candidates. That is understandable. BUT the stakes are huge now. We cannot let down the 1.6 million who defied the threats and intimidation from the rich to vote for a new and better country and world. Unity is strength. Don't let our differences weaken our cause. ‪#‎HopeOverFear‬ remains our clarion call. Tommy (My personal opinion)

[marinello59]

I like Tommy Sheridan but suggesting we become a one party, one issue country for several years with no guarantee of actually getting another referendum within such a timescale is bonkers.

[bawheid]

I like Tommy Sheridan but suggesting we become a one party, one issue country for several years with no guarantee of actually getting another referendum within such a timescale is bonkers.

I don't agree with everything he says either but that's not what he's advocating, is it?

He's saying we should attempt to elect the SNP en masse to Westminster in 2015 to send a message but also to fight the austerity that'll surely deepen now that Scotland has been put back in its box. The Scottish parliament elections are different in that you can vote for different parties if you wish.

The Tories died in Scotland yonks ago and Labour are a dead duck too now that they've been high-fiving Tories for the past couple of months.

I could easily see a bright yellow Scotland on election night next year.

[ronaldo7]

I don't agree with everything he says either but that's not what he's advocating, is it?

He's saying we should attempt to elect the SNP en masse to Westminster in 2015 to send a message but also to fight the austerity that'll surely deepen now that Scotland has been put back in its box. The Scottish parliament elections are different in that you can vote for different parties if you wish.

The Tories died in Scotland yonks ago and Labour are a dead duck too now that they've been high-fiving Tories for the past couple of months.

I could easily see a bright yellow Scotland on election night next year.

Spot on:aok:

[Dinkydoo]

Realky, your birth cert states your nationality is scottish? I doubt that...

And you never answered what your nationslity is on yiur passport and dtiving licence?




Nope, you're missing the point.



Your birth certificate reflects the fact that there is a separate Registrar in Scotland.

My point is that in terms of this discussion, its about as relevant as the nationality on your passport; which is only for the purposes of international travel. Neither confirms whether or not Scotland is a country

[marinello59]

I don't agree with everything he says either but that's not what he's advocating, is it?

He's saying we should attempt to elect the SNP en masse to Westminster in 2015 to send a message but also to fight the austerity that'll surely deepen now that Scotland has been put back in its box. The Scottish parliament elections are different in that you can vote for different parties if you wish.

The Tories died in Scotland yonks ago and Labour are a dead duck too now that they've been high-fiving Tories for the past couple of months.

I could easily see a bright yellow Scotland on election night next year.

He's asking us all to ensure we return a Tory Westminster Government with no guarantee that a referendum will follow as a result. Like I said I like Sheridan but he hasn't really thought this one through.

[Pretty Boy]

I don't agree with everything he says either but that's not what he's advocating, is it?

He's saying we should attempt to elect the SNP en masse to Westminster in 2015 to send a message but also to fight the austerity that'll surely deepen now that Scotland has been put back in its box. The Scottish parliament elections are different in that you can vote for different parties if you wish.

The Tories died in Scotland yonks ago and Labour are a dead duck too now that they've been high-fiving Tories for the past couple of months.

I could easily see a bright yellow Scotland on election night next year.

I'm no fan of Tommy Sheridan as a person but I see where he is coming from here.

None of the smaller parties are able to compete at Westminster so if they can help get SNP candidates elected, undoubtedly with a few policy concessions, then it might make sense. The inevitable Tory governement that would follow is obviously a concern though.

I'd fully expect each party to compete on it's own merits with the STV system at Holyrood.

[CropleyWasGod]

He's asking us all to ensure we return a Tory Westminster Government with no guarantee that a referendum will follow as a result. Like I said I like Sheridan but he hasn't really thought this one through.

....which in itself creates another "Us v them" scenario, Perfect Storm 2? :greengrin

Quite a gamble, though.

[Leith Green]

Looks like Tommy is preparing for another referendum in 2020, having booted the Labour party into touch in 2015.

UNITY FOR INDEPENDENCE STATEMENT (PERSONAL)

Over the last couple of days I have been inundated with thousands of facebook and twitter messages from disappointed YES supporters looking for a way forward. I am encouraged so many have decided to become politically involved and stay politically engaged. Leaving politics to the politicians is a recipe for poor governance.

Obviously I welcome those wishing to join my own party Solidarity. We have some of the best activists around and can be contacted at solidarityscotland.org New members are positive. However it is not enough.

What I am about to say is uncomfortable for a socialist like me. I oppose the SNP position on NATO membership, cutting corporation taxes for big businesses, retaining the Queen as a head of State, sharing sterling and other policies. BUT in order to maximise the pro-Independence vote in next May's General Election I believe all YES supporters should vote for the SNP and all other pro-Independence parties should not stand if the SNP candidate will commit to fight for a new Referendum as soon as possible AND against all Westmonster austerity cuts to welfare and public services.

In other words I suggest we in the YES Movement promote continued unity by backing the most likely Independence supporting candidate at next May's election. In concrete terms that means advocating an SNP vote to try and unseat as many pro-NO party supporters as possible. Let's punish the reactionary and dishonest NO parties at the ballot box next May. Let's punish the shameful Labour Party in particular for siding with the Bankers,Bosses, Billionaires and Millionaires to try and crush our dream of a new and better Scotland with an avalanche of fear and lies.

The Holyrood elections in 2016 allow for more socialist, green and diverse candidates to be elected. The Westmonster system doesn't. If SNP candidates commit to fighting for a new Referendum and against austerity cuts let's unite behind them. If successful then we should insist all pro-Independence candidates in the 2016 Scottish election commit to a March 2020 Referendum. This magnificent movement for independence and change can continue and grow. We have youth, energy and hope on our side. Hope can triumph over Fear in 2020. I realise some socialists will find it difficult to support SNP candidates. That is understandable. BUT the stakes are huge now. We cannot let down the 1.6 million who defied the threats and intimidation from the rich to vote for a new and better country and world. Unity is strength. Don't let our differences weaken our cause. ‪#‎HopeOverFear‬ remains our clarion call. Tommy (My personal opinion)


I really cant be ersed with Tommy Sheridan to be honest, always thought he was a bit of a self indulging walloper. However i have respect for him on this matter, he is clearly prepared to look at the bigger picture, and put other party differences to the side. If the others do the same, and Yes supporters are wise with their votes, i can only see independence as more of a when than an if

[Leith Green]

....which in itself creates another "Us v them" scenario, Perfect Storm 2? :greengrin

Quite a gamble, though.

I said it before and i ll say it again, the best thing for the Yes campaign is for us to have a Tory government, and a *****y labour party.

[Sergio sledge]

Its my opinion, but it is a fact, thst is undeniable.

I don't understand, are you saying that it is undeniable that it is a fact that it is your opinion? :greengrin

What you are saying isn't a fact, it is only your opinion. Unless you can show me the legal definition of a country which proves Scotland isn't one. The UK is generally described as a union of countries, Scotland being one of these.

I'm going to stick to my opinion that Scotland is a country until someone produces proof otherwise. Those claiming that it isn't are just being melodramatic.

[JeMeSouviens]

Doesn't matter what Scotland does or not IMO. When England takes a good look at Ed Milliband as future PM, Labour is toast. He's absolutely hopeless. Tory majority a stick on imo.

[The_Exile]

How come stuff like this isn't being reported on the news? That area was full of hope and happiness 4 days ago. Now it's full of hatred and contempt.

https://scontent-a-cdg.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xap1/v/t42.1790-2/10662309_10152645465660901_520589627_n.mp4?oh=b42e 4a25d3ee1ea0c84bbedbfb7c006b&oe=541CB4CE

[JeMeSouviens]

I don't understand, are you saying that it is undeniable that it is a fact that it is your opinion? :greengrin

What you are saying isn't a fact, it is only your opinion. Unless you can show me the legal definition of a country which proves Scotland isn't one. The UK is generally described as a union of countries, Scotland being one of these.

I'm going to stick to my opinion that Scotland is a country until someone produces proof otherwise. Those claiming that it isn't are just being melodramatic.

The usual UK establishment form of words is that the UK is one country, but a family of 4 nations.

[The_Exile]

Doesn't the UN describe a country as a land mass with a border or something? We have a border which would suggest we are indeed a country, if the UK was one big country there would be no borders.

[RyeSloan]

The usual UK establishment form of words is that the UK is one country, but a family of 4 nations.

And the difference between a nation and a country is?

I see Scotland as both but don't pretend to have the definitive definition :-)

Interesting debate tho!

[Sergio sledge]

And the difference between a nation and a country is?

I see Scotland as both but don't pretend to have the definitive definition :-)

Interesting debate tho!

I suppose nation could be referring to people, country more to do with land?

Sent from my Venue 8 Pro 5830 using Tapatalk

[Sergio sledge]

The usual UK establishment form of words is that the UK is one country, but a family of 4 nations.



Found this interesting link, clear as mud... (http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html)


Sent from my Venue 8 Pro 5830 using Tapatalk

[Phil D. Rolls]

So much hatred on this thread now. Time to accept the decision and move on, get on with your lives.

I'm away to eat my cereal.


PB, meant to reply to this before now but lost where it was and only just rediscovered it.

I wouldn't dismiss the fact that 38% of Labour voters supported Indy, though I think that was one vote in a very specific context. Let's see where the opinion polling goes over the next few months which will be interesting.

What I would say is that the 'Labour for Independence' group, no matter how they try to portray it, were a put up job. I believe in fact that there were pics taken showing some of their reputed 'members' campaigning as SNP activists. I could be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure it is accurate. I have no doubt that there will be Labour voters willing or wanting to switch to SNP, but that doesn't make this charade of a group any more real.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, people were considering the possibility that mature debate could be based on genuine evidence rather than supposition.

[Hibrandenburg]

PB, meant to reply to this before now but lost where it was and only just rediscovered it.

I wouldn't dismiss the fact that 38% of Labour voters supported Indy, though I think that was one vote in a very specific context. Let's see where the opinion polling goes over the next few months which will be interesting.

What I would say is that the 'Labour for Independence' group, no matter how they try to portray it, were a put up job. I believe in fact that there were pics taken showing some of their reputed 'members' campaigning as SNP activists. I could be wrong about that but I'm pretty sure it is accurate. I have no doubt that there will be Labour voters willing or wanting to switch to SNP, but that doesn't make this charade of a group any more real.

Labour as we know them are dead in Scotland. Cause of death? Assisted suicide.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Labour as we know them are dead in Scotland. Cause of death? Assisted suicide.

Dead as a Dodo, because they refuse to listen to what people are telling them. Instead they keep repeating the same mantras in the belief that we will understand their message eventually.

Instead of picking up on the massive defection in their vote and the number of people joining other political parties, they just keep going in the same smug, patronising way they always have.

Millibands sorties into Scotland have been disastrous. He looked like a man that had just stepped on a turd.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't understand, are you saying that it is undeniable that it is a fact that it is your opinion? :greengrin

What you are saying isn't a fact, it is only your opinion. Unless you can show me the legal definition of a country which proves Scotland isn't one. The UK is generally described as a union of countries, Scotland being one of these.

I'm going to stick to my opinion that Scotland is a country until someone produces proof otherwise. Those claiming that it isn't are just being melodramatic.


It is a fact. Scotland isn't a country. Jeezo, we've only had our own parliament, with very limited powers (granted to us by, and still within the gift of, our UK Government and UK parliament) since 1999. We are still governed by a Secretary of State for Scotland, who heads a department of the UK Government and is appointed by the UK Prime Minister and who has the power to veto any legislation from the Scottish Parliament (and whose main office is in, yep, you guessed it, London).

We have no treaties, no borders or customs rights, we are not members of any international organisations (except two sporting bodies by an accident of history), have no embassies or diplomats, military, macro economic or fiscal policy or central bank, our supreme court is in London. Our flag does not fly outside the UN building in New York, nor the EU buildings in Europe. We are not members of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Our state broadcaster is the British Broadcasting Corporation based in London. All of our business and trade regulators are based in London. We cannot declare war and the name Scotland doesn't appear on any single treaty or agreement between countries that has taken place since 1707. Your passport, driving license, and all of your legal documents have your nationality as British.

But we can agree to disagree. Its like arguing with a religious person who 'knows' that God exists. It is impossible to disprove a belief or a faith, because they are be definition NOT based on facts.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Doesn't the UN describe a country as a land mass with a border or something? We have a border which would suggest we are indeed a country, if the UK was one big country there would be no borders.


But we don't actually have a border. You have never had to show your passport passing between Scotland and England have you?

The border between Scotland and England is an administrative border, as exists between Norfolk or Suffolk.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Dead as a Dodo, because they refuse to listen to what people are telling them. Instead they keep repeating the same mantras in the belief that we will understand their message eventually.

Instead of picking up on the massive defection in their vote and the number of people joining other political parties, they just keep going in the same smug, patronising way they always have.

Millibands sorties into Scotland have been disastrous. He looked like a man that had just stepped on a turd.


I wouldn't be writing the Labour obituary just yet.

Agree about Milliband though. I would guess he is the single biggest impediment to Labour winning the next general election - I just cant see British people electing him as PM.

[MyJo]

It is a fact. Scotland isn't a country. Jeezo, we've only had our own parliament, with very limited powers (granted to us by, and still within the gift of, our UK Government and UK parliament) since 1999. We are still governed by a Secretary of State for Scotland, who heads a department of the UK Government and is appointed by the UK Prime Minister and who has the power to veto any legislation from the Scottish Parliament (and whose main office is in, yep, you guessed it, London).

We have no treaties, no borders or customs rights, we are not members of any international organisations (except two sporting bodies by an accident of history), have no embassies or diplomats, military, macro economic or fiscal policy or central bank, our supreme court is in London. Our flag does not fly outside the UN building in New York, nor the EU buildings in Europe. We are not members of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Our state broadcaster is the British Broadcasting Corporation based in London. All of our business and trade regulators are based in London. We cannot declare war and the name Scotland doesn't appear on any single treaty or agreement between countries that has taken place since 1707. Your passport, driving license, and all of your legal documents have your nationality as British.

But we can agree to disagree. Its like arguing with a religious person who 'knows' that God exists. It is impossible to disprove a belief or a faith, because they are be definition NOT based on facts.


http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/picard_clapping.gif

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wouldn't be writing the Labour obituary just yet.

Agree about Milliband though. I would guess he is the single biggest impediment to Labour winning the next general election - I just cant see British people electing him as PM.

It will be a tragedy if their treacherous behaviour - defending the Union to save their own skins - goes unpunished.

Milligoon is definitely unelectable, Farage (spit) would be a more palatable option to voters.

[Sergio sledge]

It is a fact. Scotland isn't a country. Jeezo, we've only had our own parliament, with very limited powers (granted to us by, and still within the gift of, our UK Government and UK parliament) since 1999. We are still governed by a Secretary of State for Scotland, who heads a department of the UK Government and is appointed by the UK Prime Minister and who has the power to veto any legislation from the Scottish Parliament (and whose main office is in, yep, you guessed it, London).

We have no treaties, no borders or customs rights, we are not members of any international organisations (except two sporting bodies by an accident of history), have no embassies or diplomats, military, macro economic or fiscal policy or central bank, our supreme court is in London. Our flag does not fly outside the UN building in New York, nor the EU buildings in Europe. We are not members of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Our state broadcaster is the British Broadcasting Corporation based in London. All of our business and trade regulators are based in London. We cannot declare war and the name Scotland doesn't appear on any single treaty or agreement between countries that has taken place since 1707. Your passport, driving license, and all of your legal documents have your nationality as British.

Nice rant. But how many of those things define a country legally? Did you look at my link I posted earlier.

Whether your nationality is stated as British on your passport or not doesn't affect whether Scotland is a country or not.


But we can agree to disagree. Its like arguing with a religious person who 'knows' that God exists. It is impossible to disprove a belief or a faith, because they are be definition NOT based on facts.

How is my definition not based on facts? You've yet to produce a legal definition of a country, only a list of things which you think define a country. Surely you, if your definition is so definitively based on facts, can easily find the definitive legal definition of a country which says that a country only exists when it has treaties, borders and customs rights, is a member of international organisations, has embassies diplomats, military, macro economic, fiscal policy, central bank, and supreme court. Has its flag flying outside the UN building in New York, or the EU buildings in Europe. Is a member of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Has a state broadcaster based in the place. Has all of its business and trade regulators based in the place. Can declare war and its name appears on treaties or agreements between countries.

The definition of a country is fluid and wooly and no matter impressive a rant you go on won't change that.

[The Baldmans Comb]

It is a fact. Scotland isn't a country. Jeezo, we've only had our own parliament, with very limited powers (granted to us by, and still within the gift of, our UK Government and UK parliament) since 1999. We are still governed by a Secretary of State for Scotland, who heads a department of the UK Government and is appointed by the UK Prime Minister and who has the power to veto any legislation from the Scottish Parliament (and whose main office is in, yep, you guessed it, London).

We have no treaties, no borders or customs rights, we are not members of any international organisations (except two sporting bodies by an accident of history), have no embassies or diplomats, military, macro economic or fiscal policy or central bank, our supreme court is in London. Our flag does not fly outside the UN building in New York, nor the EU buildings in Europe. We are not members of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Our state broadcaster is the British Broadcasting Corporation based in London. All of our business and trade regulators are based in London. We cannot declare war and the name Scotland doesn't appear on any single treaty or agreement between countries that has taken place since 1707. Your passport, driving license, and all of your legal documents have your nationality as British.

But we can agree to disagree. Its like arguing with a religious person who 'knows' that God exists. It is impossible to disprove a belief or a faith, because they are be definition NOT based on facts.


Very clever and perceptive but I'm afraid you'll no be getting your Nat King if the 'hot Spanish chick' reads that.:wink:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Very clever and perceptive but I'm afraid you'll no be getting your Nat King if the 'hot Spanish chick' reads that.:wink:

Ha ha, im sure that would just be another on a long list of reasons... :greengrin

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nice rant. But how many of those things define a country legally? Did you look at my link I posted earlier.

Whether your nationality is stated as British on your passport or not doesn't affect whether Scotland is a country or not.



How is my definition not based on facts? You've yet to produce a legal definition of a country, only a list of things which you think define a country. Surely you, if your definition is so definitively based on facts, can easily find the definitive legal definition of a country which says that a country only exists when it has treaties, borders and customs rights, is a member of international organisations, has embassies diplomats, military, macro economic, fiscal policy, central bank, and supreme court. Has its flag flying outside the UN building in New York, or the EU buildings in Europe. Is a member of OECD, NATO, WTO or any other supra national body. Has a state broadcaster based in the place. Has all of its business and trade regulators based in the place. Can declare war and its name appears on treaties or agreements between countries.

The definition of a country is fluid and wooly and no matter impressive a rant you go on won't change that.

That's because I hadn't looked. I don't believe it is woolly.

But, first google search (i've highlighted what I think are the particularly unwoolly bits):

The portion of the earth's surface occupied by an independent nation or people; or the inhabitants of such territory. In its primary meaning "country" signifies "place;" and. in a larger sense, the territory or dominions occupied by a community ; or even waste and unpeopled sections or regions of the earth. But its metaphorical meaning is no less definite and well understood; and in common parlance, in historical and geographical writings, in diplomacy, legislation, treaties, and international codes, the word is employed to denote the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory. Stairs v. Peaslee. 18 How. 521, 15 L. Ed. 474; U. S. v. Recorder, 1 Blatchf. 218. 225, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 280, Fed. Cas. No. 16,129. In pleading and practice. The inhabitants of a district from which a jury is to be summoned ; pais ; a jury. 3 Bl. Comm. 349; Steph. PL 73, 78, 230.

http://thelawdictionary.org/country/

[Sergio sledge]

That's because I hadn't looked. I don't believe it is woolly.

But, first google search (i've highlighted what I think are the particularly unwoolly bits):

The portion of the earth's surface occupied by an independent nation or people; or the inhabitants of such territory. In its primary meaning "country" signifies "place;" and. in a larger sense, the territory or dominions occupied by a community ; or even waste and unpeopled sections or regions of the earth. But its metaphorical meaning is no less definite and well understood; and in common parlance, in historical and geographical writings, in diplomacy, legislation, treaties, and international codes, the word is employed to denote the population, the nation, the state, or the government, having possession and dominion over a territory. Stairs v. Peaslee. 18 How. 521, 15 L. Ed. 474; U. S. v. Recorder, 1 Blatchf. 218. 225, 5 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 280, Fed. Cas. No. 16,129. In pleading and practice. The inhabitants of a district from which a jury is to be summoned ; pais ; a jury. 3 Bl. Comm. 349; Steph. PL 73, 78, 230.

http://thelawdictionary.org/country/

Ok fair enough I guess I'm wrong. The link I provided earlier has other definitions that don't really totally tally with that, I guess that's why there's arguments about countries like Taiwan etc.

[steakbake]

Have we really descended to trying to establish what a nation, a country or a state is? To prove or disprove that Scotland exists? This is a new bizarre turn in the debate...

Good luck in figuring that one out - we're still reading theorists from 200-300 years ago who all disagree on a definition. ;-)

[over the line]

Have we really descended to trying to establish what a nation, a country or a state is? To prove or disprove that Scotland exists? This is a new bizarre turn in the debate...

Good luck in figuring that one out - we're still reading theorists from 200-300 years ago who all disagree on a definition. ;-)

Scotland definitely exists, I've been there loads of times. I seem to remember there being a sign on the border, saying welcome to Scotland. I hope this helps in resolving this issue/debate? ;):D

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ok fair enough I guess I'm wrong. The link I provided earlier has other definitions that don't really totally tally with that, I guess that's why there's arguments about countries like Taiwan etc.

Fair dos mate.

I was, of course being a little contrary. I do understand what you mean, Scotland is to many people a country, and almost certainly is a country-in-waiting. I'm just a bit sick of all this country of the imagination, or cultural country stuff. We are not a real country, IMO, until we are prepared to stand and take responsibility for our decisions. Until then, we remain a pseudo-country at best.

I am also increasingly frustrated with the half-in, half-out position we (as Scots) are taking, and also we (as Brits) take re Europe. If something is a good idea, lets do it. If its not, then lets get out. All this phannying around just seems like the worst of both worlds. If the majority of Scots want to remain British, and I fully accept that we do, then why all this 'yeah, but we can be Scots as well' stuff? That's what I have difficulty with - I think its a cowardly, dishonest position. I want people to have conviction - conviction that yes, we are British, we want to play a full part in being British and stop then looking to manufacture differences or profess our Scottish patriotism. Or else we have the courage to go on our own, and allow the rest of Britain to do likewise without us, the most unfaithful of partners, hampering them.

[Sir David Gray]

Fair dos mate.

I was, of course being a little contrary. I do understand what you mean, Scotland is to many people a country, and almost certainly is a country-in-waiting. I'm just a bit sick of all this country of the imagination, or cultural country stuff. We are not a real country, IMO, until we are prepared to stand and take responsibility for our decisions. Until then, we remain a pseudo-country at best.

I am also increasingly frustrated with the half-in, half-out position we (as Scots) are taking, and also we (as Brits) take re Europe. If something is a good idea, lets do it. If its not, then lets get out. All this phannying around just seems like the worst of both worlds. If the majority of Scots want to remain British, and I fully accept that we do, then why all this 'yeah, but we can be Scots as well' stuff? That's what I have difficulty with - I think its a cowardly, dishonest position. I want people to have conviction - conviction that yes, we are British, we want to play a full part in being British and stop then looking to manufacture differences or profess our Scottish patriotism. Or else we have the courage to go on our own, and allow the rest of Britain to do likewise without us, the most unfaithful of partners, hampering them.

I don't understand why there's such a problem with people describing themselves as both Scottish and British.

There's lots of examples where people have more than one identity. In the USA, for example, I'm sure most people from Texas would be comfortable in describing themselves as Texans and also Americans.

In Queensland, I'm sure most people will be happy to call themselves Queenslanders and also Australians.

I really don't see the big deal.

I would always describe myself as being Scottish first but I would have no issue with being described as British.

[Betty Boop]

All the Edinburgh areas voted NO, quite surprised as according to some on here North and Leith were reckoned to be a YES vote.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-all-edinburgh-areas-voted-no-1-3549834

[One Day Soon]

I live in that area, I think. Not sure where the lines are drawn.... :cb

While Muirhouse and Pilton would probably have voted Yes, Stockbridge and Silverknowes would be No.

Leith itself... probably mixed, I reckon. It's the Old Leith vs New Leith thing.


If the varios parties were doing their jobs properly at the count they will know exactly how each polling station voted.

The two campaigns will have extensive canvass returns too but they won't be any use to the political parties.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I don't understand why there's such a problem with people describing themselves as both Scottish and British.

There's lots of examples where people have more than one identity. In the USA, for example, I'm sure most people from Texas would be comfortable in describing themselves as Texans and also Americans.

In Queensland, I'm sure most people will be happy to call themselves Queenslanders and also Australians.

I really don't see the big deal.

I would always describe myself as being Scottish first but I would have no issue with being described as British.

It depends on your point of view I suppose. I see the union flag and feel nothing. I hate having British on my passport. Not because I hate the English or the Irish or the Welsh ... I just want the identity I recognise and feel to be on a par with other countries.

The Texas bit I get, as I understand they were for a short time an independent state. But the Queensland bit I don't and therein lies the problem .... I don't want Scotland to be lumped in with regions of Australia or Spain which is what being part of the UK does to Scotland IMO .... This is why no amount of flag waving or Burns suppers makes you a country .... Full control of every state function does.

[CropleyWasGod]

If the varios parties were doing their jobs properly at the count they will know exactly how each polling station voted.

The two campaigns will have extensive canvass returns too but they won't be any use to the political parties.

Not in this case.... I'd always tell them to bolt. :cb

PS ignore my last post. I don't live in Edinburgh North, and Muirhouse & Stockie aren't in it either.

Inverleith, though, is.... I lost count of the Union Jacks hanging out of windows there last Thursday.

[One Day Soon]

Not in this case.... I'd always tell them to bolt. :cb

PS ignore my last post. I don't live in Edinburgh North, and Muirhouse & Stockie aren't in it either.

Inverleith, though, is.... I lost count of the Union Jacks hanging out of windows there last Thursday.

You don't need to tell them anything. They count the votes cast for each option (or candidate in normal elections) as they are being sorted from each ballot box once it is opened and then emptied on to the table. A large enough sample of votes counted tells them how the vote split in that ballot box. Do that for every box in that polling station, aggregate the results and you then know how each area voted.