Scottish Vote Rigged?

[unnamed 174]

Some people think that the vote on Scottish independence was rigged by the British. What is your opinion?

 

I think it was rigged, not only was there a VIDEO proving it. The British had motives. Scotland has basically all of the UK's oil. They also hold other natural resources for exports. There is also a NEWS ARTICLE, if you want to look into it.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

It was pretty close but then again, 16 - year-old children voted.

--Ocram

[Duke87 1,070]

The clip of the lady counting and the guy with the pen could both have alternative explanations.

The obviously "yes" card in a pile marked NO is a bit more interesting but then, all that proves is that one vote was misplaced.

 

 

Personally I would say that using paper ballots and counting them by hand is horrible practice for the 21st century since it is extremely shenanigan-prone. The counting needs to be done by a computer. Easy enough, a scanner can tell which box is checked and flag the ballot as spoiled if both or neither contain some mark. Hell, Scantron is 1970s technology. C'mon!

 

 

I don't doubt that there were some instances of fraud because the motive, means, and opportunity are all there and given the scale of the election it is statistically likely that someone counting ballots somewhere would do so dishonestly. But I do, however, doubt two things:

1) That there was any coordinated effort by any one group across multiple polling locations.

2) That any fraud once corrected would make a difference in the end result. Let's not forget, a good 190,000 votes (more than 5% of all ballots cast) would have to have been counted incorrectly for it to make a difference. Even moreso, if shady counters can fudge yeses into nos, other shady counters can fudge nos into yeses. So really, I don't see how the outcome could be wrong. It would take a rigging scheme so massive as to be unthinkable in a developed nation.

 

It is important to have a proper appreciation of the numbers involved here. A lot of people seem to have this idea that a 55.3% majority is a narrow margin... but it's not. Not at all. In large scale elections there is a tendency of results to be pushed towards the middle. The referendum was fairly decisive (14 of the last 20 US presidential elections have been decided by a narrower margin, for example). 51/49 is "close". 55/45 is not.

[SteveMSim 275]

There will always be those diehard separatist people who will not accept the election results and accept any conspiracy theory about the election.  The most logical conspiracy theory is that the election was rigged.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the conspiracy theorists will believe that there was massive voter fraud, which would explain "No" winning by a ten point margin.

[Sabretooth78 808]

55/45 is not close, but nor is it a mandate.  England and the UK would be well advised to tread lightly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Some people think that the vote on Scottish independence was rigged by the British. What is your opinion?

 

I think it was rigged, not only was there a VIDEO proving it. The British had motives. Scotland has basically all of the UK's oil. They also hold other natural resources for exports. There is also a NEWS ARTICLE, if you want to look into it.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. 

OH, can the conspiracy theories.  They always turn up when the grapes out of reach are declared to be sour.  Who cares?  "What's done is done and cannot be undone" -- Wm. Shakespeare.

[unnamed 174]

 

Some people think that the vote on Scottish independence was rigged by the British. What is your opinion?

 

I think it was rigged, not only was there a VIDEO proving it. The British had motives. Scotland has basically all of the UK's oil. They also hold other natural resources for exports. There is also a NEWS ARTICLE, if you want to look into it.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. 

OH, can the conspiracy theories.  They always turn up when the grapes out of reach are declared to be sour.  Who cares?  "What's done is done and cannot be undone" -- Wm. Shakespeare.

 

I know, but democracy must be a democracy. What I have seen here was not a democracy. I am not saying that there should be a recount. I am just saying that I am a bit suspicious.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

 

Some people think that the vote on Scottish independence was rigged by the British. What is your opinion?

 

I think it was rigged, not only was there a VIDEO proving it. The British had motives. Scotland has basically all of the UK's oil. They also hold other natural resources for exports. There is also a NEWS ARTICLE, if you want to look into it.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. 

OH, can the conspiracy theories.  They always turn up when the grapes out of reach are declared to be sour.  Who cares?  "What's done is done and cannot be undone" -- Wm. Shakespeare.

 

I know, but democracy must be a democracy. What I have seen here was not a democracy. I am not saying that there should be a recount. I am just saying that I am a bit suspicious.

 

Besides quoting some alarmist trash and eating some of their sour grapes, what makes you so doubtful?

[unnamed 174]

 

 

 

Some people think that the vote on Scottish independence was rigged by the British. What is your opinion?

 

I think it was rigged, not only was there a VIDEO proving it. The British had motives. Scotland has basically all of the UK's oil. They also hold other natural resources for exports. There is also a NEWS ARTICLE, if you want to look into it.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone with my opinion. 

OH, can the conspiracy theories.  They always turn up when the grapes out of reach are declared to be sour.  Who cares?  "What's done is done and cannot be undone" -- Wm. Shakespeare.

 

I know, but democracy must be a democracy. What I have seen here was not a democracy. I am not saying that there should be a recount. I am just saying that I am a bit suspicious.

 

Besides quoting some alarmist trash and eating some of their sour grapes, what makes you so doubtful?

 

400,000 people don't suddenly change their mind about their political views. A few days before the election, the yes votes were the majority. Somehow, on the election day, about 400,000 did not want independence, out of nowhere. 

[MandelSoft 2,775]

 Even if the votes were the other way around, (55% yes instead of no), it would still not be recommended to let Scotland secede from the United Kingdom. The majority is not that much of a majority and you would still have 45% (which is still almost but not quite half) of the people against the plans. It would leave a new country divided within itself, with the other half struggling to get back into the union again. Such a thing could only end in tears...

 

And then I have not even mentioned the shenanigans involved to even get your own independent country, or the relations between a (now hypothetical again) separate Scotland and the EU (not to mention potential border controls with the UK, which is something quite some people don't want)... 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The status has not lost its quo.  You'd be surprised how people behave when they have that ballot in their hand.  Talk is cheap, but separation would have meant serious dislocation of comforts for about two years.

[Duke87 1,070]

400,000 people don't suddenly change their mind about their political views. A few days before the election, the yes votes were the majority. Somehow, on the election day, about 400,000 did not want independence, out of nowhere. 

 

Except.... yeah, they do. On any issue you are always going to have people who aren't sure which way to vote and have a tough time deciding. Many of these people will say "yes" when polled unofficially, but when it comes to election day they either don't bother to show up or end up voting "no" because when asked to make a serious decision they're not willing to commit to change.

 

I'm sure you also have a lot of Scots who want independence for emotional reasons but realize that there are practical real world problems with actually doing it and ended up voting "no", for the same reason, despite answering "yes" to polls.

 

People have this uncanny habit of wanting to maintain the status quo unless they have good reason not to. People also have this uncanny habit of talking big but then not putting their money where their mouth is. Combine the two and what you get on any referendum like this is that the change side will have preliminary polls skewed in its favor.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Agreed.  As I said earlier, the only poll that counts is the ballot box.  It's all over but the shouting and the eating of sour grapes.

[Xenocity 343]

There is a good chance the English/Westminster pulled something to maintain the status quo and to kill the yes vote.

 

The EU, Canada, Spain, and few others were pressuring PM Cameron to ensure the no vote won to prevent their minorities from following suit.

 

If Scotland would have declared indepdence the following would have happen worldwide:

1. Quebec would have followed suit (they and Canada was watching this closely)
2. Catalonia would have used it as precendence against Spain (they both were waiting with baited breath for the results)
3. Walloons in Belgium would have pushed for breaking up Belgium into 3 countries (this is still likely to happen soon)
4. Pro Russian Eastern Ukraine would have used it as justification for joining Russia (this is still likely to happen soon)
5. Cechens in Russia would have pushed for succession (this is still likely to happen soon)
6. Tibeit would have risen up against China
7. Parts of India and Pakistan would have broken away (this is still likely to happen soon)
8. Parts Africa would have followed suit (this is still likely to happen soon)

Scotland was warned by the EU, it would see countries veto it's admission to the EU and Euro.

U.S. and other countries said there was no guarantee they would accept their indepedence and allow them to enter international institutions.

They also said they might engage Scotland politically and economically.

There is always chance of an economic and monetary embargo if Scotland or Wales decides to breakway.

 

Long story short Scotland was threatened with international and economic isolation if they declared independence.

 

I think it is time for Scotland to leave the UK, because England has failed to follow through on their end of the deal at the expense of Scotland.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think you are dead wrong about Quebec.  The present premier is talking about signing the Constitution Act, which would lock Quebec to Canada.

 

The sorry old French(?) intellectuals in Quebec are being diluted by immigration and Bill 101 notwithstanding, are going to be dragged into the 21st century will they, nil they.  That last rights charter by the PQ pretty much sealed their fate as a bunch of crotchety old racists.  Somehow I don't believe they want to be an island of Joual in a sea of English.  They don't even speak a standard dialect of French there.

[Xenocity 343]

I think you are dead wrong about Quebec.  The present premier is talking about signing the Constitution Act, which would lock Quebec to Canada.

 

The sorry old French(?) intellectuals in Quebec are being diluted by immigration and Bill 101 notwithstanding, are going to be dragged into the 21st century will they, nil they.  That last rights charter by the PQ pretty much sealed their fate as a bunch of crotchety old racists.  Somehow I don't believe they want to be an island of Joual in a sea of English.  They don't even speak a standard dialect of French there.

Quebec is joined by Canada via a Treaty and Act of Westminster

They can only leave Canada by the will of the voters of Quebec with consent of Canada

Polls are taken on a regular basis even by the BBC shows 50/50 split on independence.

 

I've read and heard plenty on the demand for another referendum in Quebec.

It's literally reported on every few months by the American and foreign media outlets.

BBC world has been reporting on Quebec's Independence movement, and how close they are to leaving Canada, over the last year.

 

Canada is like Belgium, both are countries created by treaties agreed upon by foreign powers.

Countries created this way generally break up due cultural and linquistic differences.

Canada needs to let Quebec join with France and let Eastern provinces vote on leaving as well.

There is no good in keeping Canada together in its current form.

 

With that all said, there is talk of Canada eventually agreeing to be annexed by U.S., due to the Canada's overdependancy with U.S.

Canada needs the U.S. for security and economics.

Literally 70% of the Canadian economic activity is due to doing business with the U.S.

This number goes up every year as Canada grows more dependent on the U.S. economically.

It is regularly discussed in both business and political circles here in the states.

Essentially each Canadian province would become a state.

Though the main issue talked about regarding this is the difficulty in Canadian provinces making the switch to full capitalist system.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Would it be in the UK's interests for Scotland to remain? YES.
Would they have interfered with the results to ensure that? Probably not.

Independent opinion polls stated that the referendum was too close to call. Although the NO vote was larger than I was expecting, there were definitely many Scots who were against the seperation of the union.

Also, referendums have been known to fail. Quebec has voted no twice and my country Australia voted no to becoming a republic about 15 years ago, even though polls showed a yes majority. Although the majority of people here would have preferred a republic over our constitutional monarchy, many had questions about the way it were to be implimented and probably changed to a no vote to keep with what they knew. This may have been what happened in Scotland, where the overall wanted independence but were sketchy about the details of implimentation.

[Sabretooth78 808]

With that all said, there is talk of Canada eventually agreeing to be annexed by U.S., due to the Canada's overdependancy with U.S.

 

My take is that the issue comes up more often in the form of a pro argument for the creation of some sort of North American analog to the EU as opposed to an outright merger/annexation.

 

Depending on how quickly the US implodes (I'm guessing it to be in the 2020-2030 timeframe, surely by 2050) you might see somewhat of the opposite occur.  While I would expect most of the states to band together into a reborn federation(s) and others to remain independent w/ defense and economic pacts with the neighbors (I would see this as a real possibility for NH and VT), there may be a few which would choose to align with Canada.  I could see ME, MN, the Dakotas, Upstate NY, etc. possibly doing so.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 

I think you are dead wrong about Quebec.  The present premier is talking about signing the Constitution Act, which would lock Quebec to Canada.

 

The sorry old French(?) intellectuals in Quebec are being diluted by immigration and Bill 101 notwithstanding, are going to be dragged into the 21st century will they, nil they.  That last rights charter by the PQ pretty much sealed their fate as a bunch of crotchety old racists.  Somehow I don't believe they want to be an island of Joual in a sea of English.  They don't even speak a standard dialect of French there.

Quebec is joined by Canada via a Treaty and Act of Westminster

They can only leave Canada by the will of the voters of Quebec with consent of Canada

Polls are taken on a regular basis even by the BBC shows 50/50 split on independence.

 

I've read and heard plenty on the demand for another referendum in Quebec.

It's literally reported on every few months by the American and foreign media outlets.

BBC world has been reporting on Quebec's Independence movement, and how close they are to leaving Canada, over the last year.

 

Canada is like Belgium, both are countries created by treaties agreed upon by foreign powers.

Countries created this way generally break up due cultural and linquistic differences.

Canada needs to let Quebec join with France and let Eastern provinces vote on leaving as well.

There is no good in keeping Canada together in its current form.

 

With that all said, there is talk of Canada eventually agreeing to be annexed by U.S., due to the Canada's overdependancy with U.S.

Canada needs the U.S. for security and economics.

Literally 70% of the Canadian economic activity is due to doing business with the U.S.

This number goes up every year as Canada grows more dependent on the U.S. economically.

It is regularly discussed in both business and political circles here in the states.

Essentially each Canadian province would become a state.

Though the main issue talked about regarding this is the difficulty in Canadian provinces making the switch to full capitalist system.

 

I think you've been reading too much into the foreign press.  Of late, we've been seeking trading partners outside the U.S. sphere of influence and we are being quite successful.  No Canadian would ever want to be an American.  This is built into the psyche.  There is absolutely nothing admirable about U.S. citizenship, and lots to denigrate starting with the love affair with arms, and a really stupid political system.

[Xenocity 343]

 

 

I think you are dead wrong about Quebec.  The present premier is talking about signing the Constitution Act, which would lock Quebec to Canada.

 

The sorry old French(?) intellectuals in Quebec are being diluted by immigration and Bill 101 notwithstanding, are going to be dragged into the 21st century will they, nil they.  That last rights charter by the PQ pretty much sealed their fate as a bunch of crotchety old racists.  Somehow I don't believe they want to be an island of Joual in a sea of English.  They don't even speak a standard dialect of French there.

Quebec is joined by Canada via a Treaty and Act of Westminster

They can only leave Canada by the will of the voters of Quebec with consent of Canada

Polls are taken on a regular basis even by the BBC shows 50/50 split on independence.

 

I've read and heard plenty on the demand for another referendum in Quebec.

It's literally reported on every few months by the American and foreign media outlets.

BBC world has been reporting on Quebec's Independence movement, and how close they are to leaving Canada, over the last year.

 

Canada is like Belgium, both are countries created by treaties agreed upon by foreign powers.

Countries created this way generally break up due cultural and linquistic differences.

Canada needs to let Quebec join with France and let Eastern provinces vote on leaving as well.

There is no good in keeping Canada together in its current form.

 

With that all said, there is talk of Canada eventually agreeing to be annexed by U.S., due to the Canada's overdependancy with U.S.

Canada needs the U.S. for security and economics.

Literally 70% of the Canadian economic activity is due to doing business with the U.S.

This number goes up every year as Canada grows more dependent on the U.S. economically.

It is regularly discussed in both business and political circles here in the states.

Essentially each Canadian province would become a state.

Though the main issue talked about regarding this is the difficulty in Canadian provinces making the switch to full capitalist system.

 

I think you've been reading too much into the foreign press.  Of late, we've been seeking trading partners outside the U.S. sphere of influence and we are being quite successful.  No Canadian would ever want to be an American.  This is built into the psyche.  There is absolutely nothing admirable about U.S. citizenship, and lots to denigrate starting with the love affair with arms, and a really stupid political system.

 

Canada will never lose it's dependacy on the U.S., it's just not possible or in the best interest of Canada.

Canada has nothing superior to the U.S., not even it's maplely smelling money.

The U.S. political system is far more stable than Canada's.

I mean Harper and his party are trying to bring capitalism and true democracy to Canada.

The liberals have sold you guys up the socialist river, which nearly bankrupted Canada in the 80s and early 90s.

 

There's a reason why Canada is the butt of jokes worldwide and is called America's hat!

[hym 358]

I think you've been reading too much into the foreign press.  Of late, we've been seeking trading partners outside the U.S. sphere of influence and we are being quite successful.  No Canadian would ever want to be an American.  This is built into the psyche.  There is absolutely nothing admirable about U.S. citizenship, and lots to denigrate starting with the love affair with arms, and a really stupid political system.

 

I happen to know two individuals who traded Canadian citizenship for US citizenship and were quite glad that they did.  I know a few others that love living in the US.  (I have no idea what their citizenship status is.)

 

Canada will never lose it's dependacy on the U.S., it's just not possible or in the best interest of Canada.

 

Canada has nothing superior to the U.S., not even it's maplely smelling money.

The U.S. political system is far more stable than Canada's.

I mean Harper and his party are trying to bring capitalism and true democracy to Canada.

The liberals have sold you guys up the socialist river, which nearly bankrupted Canada in the 80s and early 90s.

 

There's a reason why Canada is the butt of jokes worldwide and is called America's hat!

 

Much of that is a matter of opinion, if it is even a defensible opinion.  It is certainly not a respectful opinion, however. 

 

Personally, I think people on both sides of the border deserve a lot more respect than they tend to be given.

 

However, we are drifting quite a bit from the threat topic.  It's time to return this thread to its appropriate topic of discussion.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I tend to agree with hym, that we have drifted far afield.  Conspiracy theories are always a fun topic, especially the silly persons that take them seriously.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Canada is like Belgium, both are countries created by treaties agreed upon by foreign powers.

Countries created this way generally break up due cultural and linquistic differences.

Erm, no. That's not true in the case of Belgium. Belgium used to be part of the Netherlands after the Netherlands was independent again from the French rule of Napoleon & co. However, the French speaking bourguise was not fond about the way things were governed from Holland (and yes, in this context, it's correct to use "Holland" instead of "the Netherlands"), especially how king William I was treating that region (back when the royals had absolute power). From Wikipedia:

The people of the south were nearly all Catholics; half were French-speaking. Many outspoken liberals regarded King William I's rule as despotic. There were high levels of unemployment and industrial unrest among the working classes

On 25 August 1830 riots erupted in Brussels and shops were looted. Theatergoers who had just watched a nationalistic opera joined the mob. Uprisings followed elsewhere in the country. Factories were occupied and machinery destroyed. Order was restored briefly after William committed troops to the Southern Provinces but rioting continued and leadership was taken up by radicals, who started talking of secession.

Dutch units saw the mass desertion of recruits from the southern provinces, and pulled out. The States-General in Brussels voted in favour of secession and declared independence. In the aftermath, a National Congress was assembled. King William refrained from future military action and appealed to the Great Powers. The resulting 1830 London Conference of major European powers recognized Belgian independence. Following the installation of Leopold I as "King of the Belgians" in 1831, King William made a belated military attempt to reconquer Belgium and restore his position through a military campaign. This "Ten Days' Campaign" failed because of French military intervention. Not until 1839 did the Dutch accept the decision of the London conference and Belgian independence by signing the Treaty of London.

To cut a long story short: Belgium has already seceeded from a larger country, and it is not created by foreign powers, like this is the case in Canada.

But that was back in the 19th century. We live in the 21st century now and things are vastly different. More than ever, Europe is an interconnected entity with the EU with an entangled economy and politics cross borders. The time that a nation can function on its own in this continent is over, whether people like it or not.

Furthermore, there are a few things in the way of splitting up Belgium:

• Brussels: Both Flanders and Wallon can't live without it. Brussels is the nail that stiches these two countries together.
• What practical use is there for splitting up Belgium when there are open borders and an entangled economy? It would only make the administration even harder than in the current system, which is already needlessly complex.
• Belgium hosts the EU. Splitting up Belgium would be very embarrasing towards the EU (which actually tries to unify Europe). And if there's one thing important for politicians, it's their image. Furthermore, they can loose their position as EU-capital, which will move to Strasbourg permanently if this will ever happen.

Best,

Maarten

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The joining of the two Canadas (Upper and Lower) is all water under the bridge with the passing of the Constitution Act of 1982 and the dissolution of the Statute of Westminster simultaneously.  Quebec was the only hold-out because there was a considerable sovereignty movement at the time.  Recently the failure of the Parti Quebecois to remain in government in Quebec and a return to the Liberals is significant, and the present premier, M. Couillard, has expressed interest in signing the constitution.  The chances of Quebec separating from the confederation is becoming slimmer by the day.

 

The rest of Canada has bent over backwards to keep Quebec, even going so far as recognizing them as a nation within the confederation.  The Federal government has been bilingual for years, but various separatist governments have tried to make Quebec as separate as possible with things such as Bill 101 (the French language act).  However, they have failed in general simply because when it chips are down, nobody really wants to be an island of Joual in a sea of English.  The Quebecois dialect does not conform to the national language of France as seen by the Acadamie Francais, and it is full of anglicisms, archaisms from the 16th century, and other nonsense gathered, as living languages do, along the way.  If you went to Quebec City and tried to get along on the Langue d'Oui you learned in school you can expect to have a hard time being understood.

 

As for immigration, there are more ex-pat Canadians in the U.S. with green cards than there are who have actually taken U.S. citizenship.  The door used to be open both ways but the knee-jerk reactions from 9/11 have slammed this shut.  You now need a passport to enter the U.S. even if you are an American returning home from vacation.  People who are not U.S. citizens who live in the U.S. are referred to as aliens.  People who live in Canada who are not Canadian citizens are referred to as residents.  In this case, the semantics make all the difference.  I know personally several former U.S. citizens who are now Canadian citizens.

 

Meanwhile, back at the Scottish Referendum.  The Noes have it, and that should be an end to it.  The Scots do not need the kind of Neverendum we have had with Quebec.