Kintyre Yes for Independence Campaign

[Shona]

The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 gave responsibility for the date of the referendum, the franchise and the question to be asked to the Scottish Government. Nicola Sturgeon introduced the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill on 11 March this year. The bill states that the local government franchise would be used as the basis for who will be able to vote in the referendum with changes to include 16 and 17 year olds as well as a specific clause to exclude prisoners from the franchise.

So do we agree that the decision on who would be able to vote was decided by the Scottish Government?

I don't think the objection to a more extensive franchise raised by the Scottish Electoral Reform Society is a strong one as they are comparing a franchise for a referendum to a franchise to elect a legislature.

A more extensive franchise to give the right to vote to some non-residents, doesn't mean that all of those people have to be contacted. It would have been up to the people concerned to register to vote, as currently happens with overseas voters in General Elections.

Which brings me back to the anomaly created by using the local government franchise. If there is a Yes vote, people who had been registered to vote in General Elections in Scotland in the last 15 years, but who no longer live in Scotland, will be able to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in an independent Scotland in the similar capacity as current 'overseas' voters. However, those people will have been excluded from having a say as to whether Scotland became independent.

[Hume]

Polls are what they are, a sample of opinion at a given time and should not necessarily be taken as a true reflection of the entire electorate. Nonetheless, their results do end up in the press as headlines....well, all except this latest one from Panelbase that is: http://wingsoverscotland.com/bullet-points/.

What is interesting about this poll, apart from results and subsequent complete blackout from the media in Scotland, is that it was entirely 'crowdfunded' - a story in itself.

Some of the key results:

Yes = 34%
No = 36%
Undecided = 30%

Now, normally this would be reported at 'two thirds of Scots don't support independence or only a third of scots support independence' when actually the split of Yes / No for those who have decided is 48.5% / 51.5%. On this occasion though - Nothing.

67% of Scots do NOT believe the Scottish Parliament will be granted any additional new powers if there is a No vote in the referendum. (And over a quarter of those people believe Holyrood’s powers will be REDUCED.)

It look like people are not being fooled in to thinking a No vote will result in a 'devo-max' scenario, and rightly so.

If Scotland was currently an independent country, only 18% of Scots would vote to join the Union.
(With 55% against and 28% undecided.)

To me this is just asking the Yes / No question in a different fashion and indicates the fragility of the No vote.

Only 6% of Scots think the Scottish media is doing an adequate job of giving them the facts about independence.
(Almost six times as many think the media just prints what it’s told.)

Now, that doesn't specifically suggest that people feel the media is biased, only that they think it is rubbish.

My view is of course that it is entirely biased and is simply a unionist propaganda machine and that is why you will not see the results of this poll, conducted by one of the most reputable polling authorities, in the mainstream media.

[Mary G]

I'd like to point out that in the way "quotes" were formatted, the post by gizmo » Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:56 pm attributes words to me that I didn't ever make.

Perhaps gizmo might like to edit the post to reflect that fact. Thanks.

[gizmo]

Apologies Mary. Sloppy work on my part.

[Shona]

Hume, Panelbase polls consistently show a much tighter race than other polls. As part of their methodology, Panelbase exclude the opinions of people who aren't certain that they will vote.

[Hume]

Hi Shona - I've no reason to dispute that, I don't know either way.

However, based on your two statements, logically it follows that the No vote is less stable than the Yes vote at this stage? In other words, in polls where No has an apparently larger lead then the one I have linked, it must include a lot of people who lean to No but are not totally convinced?

Ah, its all conjecture at this stage anyway.

What do you think about the fact there has been no coverage in the mainstream media of this?

[Shona]

Hi Shona - I've no reason to dispute that, I don't know either way.

However, based on your two statements, logically it follows that the No vote is less stable than the Yes vote at this stage? In other words, in polls where No has an apparently larger lead then the one I have linked, it must include a lot of people who lean to No but are not totally convinced?

Ah, its all conjecture at this stage anyway.

What do you think about the fact there has been no coverage in the mainstream media of this?

My guess is that the Westminster-based political hacks have buggered off on holiday!

As regards the polls, I recall reading somewhere that of the people who claim they will vote, but who also claim to not knowing how they will vote contains a higher proportion of people who would vote No. They are reluctant to reveal this as they feel that they may be regarded as unpatriotic.

[Hume]

My guess is that the Westminster-based political hacks have buggered off on holiday!

Mine would be that they just don't want to report it as it is not what they want people to read. A poll of about 800 (?) or so students at Glasgow Uni received widespread coverage in every media outlet in Scotland for days recently. Why? Maybe because it showed a majority in favour of No? Is that, a poll covering a very small sub-section of society more newsworthy than a Panelbase poll? No its not. Our media is rotten to the core and it is incredible the support for Yes is at the level it already is given the daily diet of fear and scare stories we are served.

As regards the polls, I recall reading somewhere that of the people who claim they will vote, but who also claim to not knowing how they will vote contains a higher proportion of people who would vote No. They are reluctant to reveal this as they feel that they may be regarded as unpatriotic.

That may well be someone's opinion you read - I'm not sure what the evidence would be and surely fear of being regarded as unpatriotic would not extend to a confidential interview with a professional polling organisation?

[muppetanimal]

The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 gave responsibility for the date of the referendum, the franchise and the question to be asked to the Scottish Government. ......
So do we agree that the decision on who would be able to vote was decided by the Scottish Government?

The answer to your last point is NO, the decision on who would get to vote in the referendum was not a Scottish Government one, but a decision of Westminster Government for the Scots to do something within and according
to London's rules.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Govern ... dependence

(and I quote)The Referendum Bill introduced by the Scottish Government will create a franchise for the referendum. Both governments agree that all those entitled to vote in Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections should be able to vote in the referendum. ............
The Scottish Parliamentary franchise
The Scottish Parliamentary franchise enables British, Irish, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and European Union citizens resident in Scotland to vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/sco ... ndum-votes

(and I quote) But if you exclude the under-18s issue, the Scottish government is taking a pretty consistent position on the franchise for the referendum: it is using the local government electoral roll and franchise rules.
........................The Edinburgh agreement last year is quite explicit: the referendum will be framed and decided in Scotland. So, if you want to influence that outcome and live elsewhere, you need to move.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it, Westminster with the reserved powers agrees that Scotland can have a referendum BUT (and this is the bit that you don't like) for CITIZENS RESIDENT IN SCOTLAND.

[Mary G]

Thanks gizmo, for the speedy editing!

[Shona]

Muppetanimal, this is from your your own link:

The Scottish government's briefing papers state:

'While the franchise at the referendum is a matter for the Scottish parliament to determine, the franchise in Scotland (as throughout the UK) is a matter for the UK parliament.'

This states clearly that is was the Scottish parliament who chose the franchise for the referendum. The other part of the statement refers to all other elections.

As such, the referendum franchise does create the anomaly that I mentioned in earlier posts. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that anomaly, Muppetanimal.

[muppetanimal]

The reality here is the necessity of placing everything within the correct time-frame.
What one may have wished for often fails to materialise with the passage of time,
as points are made and things are clarified.

Okay, 8th of January 2012
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-2043354
.....But the First Minister’s spokesman said: “It is the height of absurdity that unelected peers in the House of Lords should try to lay down the law about the democratic referendum we will have in Scotland. Labour had their chance to govern Scotland – and were comprehensively rejected in May 2011.

“The more unelected peers interfere and front up the No campaign, the worse it will get for anti-independence parties.

“The draft referendum bill, published by the Scottish Government in February 2010, follows the precedent of the 1997 devolution referendum: eligibility to vote is based on the franchise for Scottish Parliament elections. This is consistent with the internationally accepted principle that constitutional referendums should have a franchise determined by residency.”

----------------------------------------------


So lets look at 18th January 2012. Let's see how similar Shona's arguments
are to those of Elaine Murray MSP :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-16607480

...................According to the Scotland Act, the electorate for a Scottish Parliament election must be someone who is;

entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in an electoral area falling wholly or partly within the constituency

and is registered on the register of local government electors at an address within the constituency.

For Scots living abroad, the current rules stipulate that if you had been registered to vote in the UK in the previous 15 years you can make an annual declaration allowing you to remain on the electoral register in the constituency where you were last registered while living in the UK.

Once registered, you can vote at any UK parliamentary or European parliament election which occurs while you are on the register.

However, you cannot vote in local government elections or in elections associated with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

------------------------------------------------------------------

15th October 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-19942638

............The UK government, which has responsibility over constitutional issues, will grant limited powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a legal referendum, under a mechanism called Section 30.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

15th October 2012
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co. ... -what.html

........... Sixthly, and finally, it is worth briefly traipsing back to January 2012, when Michael Moore took to his pins in Westminster, and outlined the terms and conditions which the UK government initially wished to impose on the referendum. So what's changed? Compare and contrast today's draft with January's.

“5A.—(1) Paragraph 1 does not reserve a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom if the following requirements are met.
(2) The date of the poll at the referendum must not be the date of the poll at any other referendum held under provision made by the Parliament.
(3) The date of the poll at the referendum must be no later than ***.
(4) There must be only one ballot paper at the referendum, and the ballot paper must give the voter a choice between only two responses.
(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum must be the persons who would be entitled to vote in an election for membership of the Parliament— .........................

----------------------------------------------------------
As noted above the UK Gov position in January 2012 was set out immediately above in (5), and this is prior to the negotiations that led to the Edinburgh Agreement in October of that year. If you again examine the text of that Agreement
you will see that the UK's position on the franchise has been steadfast :

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Govern ... dependence

(and I quote)The Referendum Bill introduced by the Scottish Government will create a franchise for the referendum. Both governments agree that all those entitled to vote in Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections should be able to vote in the referendum. ............
The Scottish Parliamentary franchise
The Scottish Parliamentary franchise enables British, Irish, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and European Union citizens resident in Scotland to vote.


The only thing that the Scottish Government had to agree to was to go along with Westminsters wishes on this matter, no conceding of points to UK Gov could have meant no agreement, no section 30 order, and potentially limitless challenges through the courts about the legitimacy of the referendum in the first place.

[mikey5]

Despite all this rhetoric, can I just ask one question? Do you honestly believe that Westminster is the best forum for issues local to us? Do they understand local issues? I for one believe in devolved power - at least they can understand issues closer to home such as the ferry. Whatever your view, I think what has happened with the ferry is a good thing for Campbeltown.

By no means am I advocating Scottish Independence but in all honesty, can anyone on here tell me why we shouldn't - why we can't do it on our own?

We shouldn't be scared of grasping the nettle.

[WC1]

When I watch the news on TV there's one phrase that keeps cropping up in relation to this new government policy or that new piece of regulation: "in England and Wales". In other words, it doesn't apply to Scotland. Listen for it; you hear it all the time. My point is this: with so much Westminster decision-making irrelevant to us, and so much decided at Holyrood that better reflects our own national needs and circumstances, why don't we just go the whole hog?

[chuckiebay]

I totally agree with the last two posts!