Hacker News Reader

Comment by brortao | Hacker News Reader

It's really exciting to follow this referendum, even if purely from a democratic perspective (out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative for 6 years, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those years). The No campaign has a difficult job, because it's not easy to sell the status quo - but they've essentially resorted to fearmongering, and it looks like people are starting to see the lack of substance. I think that theweebluebook.com presents the argument for independence quite well.

View on HN

I'd say it's the opposite. Selling radical change is harder than selling the status quo. The Yes campaign has to prove Scotland "has what it takes" and dispel all the fears and uncertainty which comes from big change. All the No campaign has to do is convince enough people things are fine as they are.

What's truly amazing about this referendum is the engagement. It's projected to be an 80% turnout, with many, many people becoming involved in politics for the first time. There were queues to get registered to vote over the last few days. The level of awareness amongst the electorate is staggering compared to previous elections. It's an exciting time to live in Scotland; no matter the result, Scottish politics won't be the same again :)

From my perspective, it's very much the opposite. The Yes campaign are fearmongering - I've seen cinema adverts from them which essentially try to claim that staying in the UK would be the death of our children's future. "Think of the children" is the argument of people who have no other argument.

On the other hand, the No campaign are very open about the fact that they expect that Scotland can take more powers from the UK without becoming independent, which is a huge deal for those of us who consider ourselves British, and consider the UK to be our country which we have rights to.

It happens on both sides, but my feeling is that the No campaign is hard to outdo when it comes to spreading fear[1].

Fair point about "think of the children" - though I'd say that it happens on both sides[2]. Not that there's a lack of arguments for independence - again, the Wee Blue Book I linked to above presents them quite well!

[1]: http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-i...

[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/01/scottish-independ...

Part of the problem there is in the nature of each sides campaign. The most common way to build an argument is to weigh up the pro's and con's, the upsides and downsides. The "Yes" campaign can promise the world on the upside, say that it'll all be amazing in the future, simply becuase nobody really knows what will happen.

Whereas the "No" campaign can only say the upside is it will be exactly the same as today, just the boring status quo. So they've been kinda forced into negative campaigning just by the nature of the decision to be made.

They could've tried some bribery perhaps, "Hey, we'll invest billions more in Scotland", but that would be really transparent on both sides and probably lose them more than they'd gain.

Yes. In the 13 general elections dating back to 1964, the Conservative party have been 2nd, 3rd or 4th in Scotland's vote share for the Westminster parliament. In the three elections since 2001, the Conservatives have finished 4th (in a 2-party system).

Yet 6 of those 13 general elections, including the most recent, have resulted in a Conservative Prime Minister.

Source: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp20...

>> out of the last 68 years, Scotland has voted Conservative 6 times, but has had Conservative governments for 38 of those years

Do you mean that Scotland has voted Conservative in 6 general elections? If so, with a maximum of 5 years between elections, they voted for a Conservative govt for up to 30years of those 38. That's quite a misleading way to represent that statistic isn't it?

On this page you can see graphical representation of Scottish and UK voting patterns, and how 'subtracting' Scottish votes would have affected UK results (in fact, very little):

http://theweebluebook.com/principles-and-politics.php

This does not address my comment.

Is the 6 times: 6 parliaments or 6 years? Is the 68: 68 parliaments or 68 years? Are units being mixed for exaggeration?

In both the unit is years. However, the figure of 6 is incorrect as I assume it refers to the fact that in 1951 the Conservatives (at the time the Unionist and National Liberal and Conservative parties in Scotland) got the same number of seats as Labour in Scotland. If we count this, the correct figure is 8 of 68 years.

Dunno - it seems like the 6 thing is mistaken. Simple enough to look at the graphical representation to see reality.

I take issue with your use of the term very little.

Granted it didn't change the ruling party, however our system isn't just the ruling party there is also the consideration of the majority of the house.

From the linked source on your page [1] we see: 41 Labour MPs were sent to Westminster 11 Liberal Democrats 1 Conservative

From the overall election we know that there was a total of 646 MPs in Westminster [2]. So combine the (41 + 11) - 1 is a combined swing to a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. That's giving the Conservatives about an 8% greater majority.

Whilst Scotland didn't pick the Westminster parliament, they certainly had a hand in providing opposition to any Conservative government.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_United_Kingdom_general_ele... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election...

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. I meant that they've voted Tory in one (and a half) election, so 6 years - like nmeofthestate wrote, there's a good image on the website linked.

It's even more interesting than you think. The Conservative Party do much better under Scotland's system of proportional representation than in Westminster.

Compare these results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_ele...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_ele...

It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.

The disproportionate Westminster system - where a reasonably sized body of Scottish Conservatives currently have 1 representative out of 304 in the London-based party - contributes to major underrepresentation of Scotland in the existing government.

> It seems right that the Conservative Party should have representation in Scotland's politics, but it seems wrong that Scotland is ruled by them.

That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.

One thing to note is that prior to the current Conservative coalition, we had a huge Labour majority for 13 years that was largely Scottish. So the Scots were ruled by a party that they voted for.

When we talk about independence, we're not talking in the same way as say, India for example. Where we had one nation that was immensely ethnically and culturally different, being ruled by people who had no interest except in what they could squeeze out of it. This is two countries that have far far more in common than they do apart. Not one country being consistently screwed by the other; the Empire and the Union was fantastic for Scotland, as the article states.

So the argument here is - are the Scots so different from the rest of the UK that they need to be ruled separately? To a greater degree than now that is; they already have their own parliament to set most Scottish laws.

NB: I'm pretty neutral on independence. I think it'll be a bureaucratic disaster if it happens, but equally, if it's what the Scots want then fair enough.

> That's a bit like saying that you only believe in democracy when it's your own party that wins the election, otherwise you'll take your ball and go home.

I'm going to bite the bullet and agree with you here. But the situation is worse than that: even if your chosen party won at this flavour of democracy, you should still consider taking the ball home.

400,000 Scottish people voted for the Conservative party - and yet these voters are unbelievably underrepresented or unrepresented within the Conservative government with only 1 MP and quite probably 0 again in the future (I concede that Scottish voters were overrepresented in the recent Labour era of government, although this was only slight)

The present UK government has no commitment to Scotland and limited reason to represent Scotland's interests, and that's likely to continue to be the case in future governments. It's not healthy or sustainable for Scotland.

Why wouldn't you choose self-rule over being locked out of government?

I think part of the problem lies in the question "Where does it end?" Not just UK/England, even within Scotland there are multiple different factions. Once you've set the principle that it's ok to divide a country because you don't think you're being represented by the current party, where does it stop? In 10 years time we might be hearing calls for Islay or the Highlands to separate from the rest of Scotland for example. Or Cornwall from England...

So to my mind, wouldn't it be better to work at improving Scotland from within the UK rather than just abandoning both it and the democratic principle?

For example, instead of voting SNP, Labour or Conservative - vote Scottish Coalition. If the Scot MPs had been a united block, independent of the major UK parties, they could have easily taken the junior party position in the current coalition. They would also have had enough seats to do the same to the previous Labour government. Then you'd see some real change, without the all the potential downsides that independence could bring.

It's a third solution that nobody even seems to be mentioning or even trying. It seems to me anyway, that people have just given up as soon as the Conservatives got in. Will there still be this same sentiment after the next election when Labour probably get back in power? Or is it just a protest vote against the Conservatives? In which case, isn't independence a seriously drastic measure that's nigh on irreversible and has a large number of potential downsides?

PS: My personal favourite idea for the future of the union is actually devo-max (not independence) for every region big and small, with the Lords being replaced by a regionally elected House with longer terms. But if you want to work within the current system, a Scot Coalition is the way I'd go.

This books presents a balanced view of the situation, which is better than something which presents itself as one sided. the other side will never read it and undecided voters will see it as just one sided fluff piece.

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com