Scottish independence referendum thread

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GGG

Greater London is the closest politically to Scotland.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/o...ut-not-london/

In fact greater london is more similar politically to Scotland than it is to the rest of England and Wales. They only elected 28/74 conservative MP's. And the more urban you get in greater london the more the Labour Party takes control.

So you might say that London is being ruled by the rest of England. And if so I think that London needs to separate from the rest of England.

And if you notice that the current British Government is a Colilition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Scotland also elected 11 liberal democrats of roughly 60 seats who sit in government. So they really sit in a similar situation to greater london.

As someone far removed from the issue, it really about politics and small differences in ideology, or is it truly about national identity?

If it is about ideology, then the whole issue is silly to me. You could even see it on this board every time Canada had a federal election, there were certain posters saying that if the Liberals won, that Alberta should separate. In a liberal democracy, the differences in ideology between conservatives, liberals and socialists is not as big as people make it out to be.

If it is about national identity, then these trivial differences in politics are nothing more than a distraction.

[killer_carlson]

Psycnet
That's a bit much.

In Alberta you have enormous economic contributions from rural areas that deserve a voice in the leg. It's a difficult thing to balance and a debate the province needs to have. There are merits on both sides.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Psycnet
That's a bit much.

In Alberta you have enormous economic contributions from rural areas that deserve a voice in the leg. It's a difficult thing to balance and a debate the province needs to have. There are merits on both sides.

The problem with that is, is that you are saying one person's vote is worth more than another person's based on where their house is located.

[killer_carlson]

That is the other side to the debate. It's an important debate and one the province needs to have.

If it were based more heavily on population, then you'd end up with large portions of the Alberta economy under represented in discussions on items such as highways, pipelines and sustainable development.

[scottish_flame]

D-day today. I can't even concentrate on anything, Just sitting here shaking

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Psycnet
That's a bit much.

In Alberta you have enormous economic contributions from rural areas that deserve a voice in the leg. It's a difficult thing to balance and a debate the province needs to have. There are merits on both sides.

What you're advocating is that a citizen should receive disproportionate representation in the government if his or her area of residence has better economic output than another region. Or, in other words: more money = more political power. There aren't strong enough words in the English language to describe how staunchly opposed to that sentiment I am. In representative democracies, each individual citizen should have equal representation in the government (as close as possible).

[killer_carlson]

no, what I am saying is that there is merit to both sides of the debate and that it is a debate the province has put off for too long.

Big difference

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

no, what I am saying is that there is merit to both sides of the debate and that it is a debate the province has put off for too long.

Big difference

Ok, let me counter then: there is absolutely ZERO merit to even entertaining the idea of a debate about disproportionate government representation based on economic output. Equal representation for all citizens is the only just form of democratic government.

[Locke]

From a human perspective this must be incredibly nerve-wracking.

I'm torn on the issue personally, I see the benefits and advantages of being independent, something all of the Scots I know have wanted for so long.

But I also realize that in the long-term development of Scotland and Europe that maybe an independent Scotland isnt a good thing for anyone.

But if I were a Scot sitting in my home in Kirkintilloch I would be very scared about what the next 24 hours may bring.

[temple5]

Not to derail this thread, and while I wont ever advocate US Politics,

The Senate in theory is supposed to make up for regional and population differences.

Maybe AB needs a 2 tier political system with its own senate to counterbalance majority desires with regional needs.

Or change the whole voting structure to be based on the income tax each location generates.

[killer_carlson]

I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other. I am saying there is merit to both sides. You make your position clear.

There are other people in the province who have a different opinion, as they wait for a highway to be twinned so the hundreds of commercial and industrial vehicles ripping by on a daily basis using their their infrastructure don't drive them off the road. They also see the population of their towns decrease every Thursday through Sunday as people "go home" for the weekend. They tell me that if you based the allocation on Monday through Thursday afternoon, they are entitled to drastically more resources and representation. If you base it from Thursday through Sunday, they may be entitled to the same. But what they do know is that billions of dollars come through there each month that cannot be ignored.

I see it as an issue which is only going to get more difficult. There is going to be a push for higher density development in both Calgary and Edmonton.

Further, i believe the last report for the constituency re-distribution recommended that the province engage in the debate for this exact purpose. That debate hasn't happened. It needs to.

[GirlySports]

Obligatory for today

Language:

NSFW!

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

There are other people in the province who have a different opinion, as they wait for a highway to be twinned so the hundreds of commercial and industrial vehicles ripping by on a daily basis using their their infrastructure don't drive them off the road.

Infrastructure spending should be based on expected usage, not on local population. If a busy highway has enough traffic to justify twinning, it shouldn't matter if it's located in a populous, sparse, rich, or poor area of the province.

Further, i believe the last report for the constituency re-distribution recommended that the province engage in the debate for this exact purpose. That debate hasn't happened. It needs to.

Isn't the recommendation for re-distribution supposed to make it closer to what I am advocating for? That is, rural Alberta is presently over-represented compared to Calgary and Edmonton, so the two big cities should receive more seats in the legislature such that their government representation more closely matches their population?

[Doodlebug]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ok, let me counter then: there is absolutely ZERO merit to even entertaining the idea of a debate about disproportionate government representation based on economic output. Equal representation for all citizens is the only just form of democratic government.

Good argument for the proportional representation system....in 2012 election PC's won 70% of seats with only 45% of vote....not quite equal representation for all citizens.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Doodlebug

Good argument for the proportional representation system....in 2012 election PC's won 70% of seats with only 45% of vote....not quite equal representation for all citizens.

That's not the side-conversation killer_carlson and I are currently having. I'm saying that each electoral district should contain roughly the same number of citizens, such that a single vote has the same electoral weight in each individual riding. He's saying there's merit in certain ridings being over-represented if those regions generate greater-than-average economic output, such that a single vote in Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (for example) is worth more than a single vote in Calgary-Elbow.

[Edit]
Here's the current situation:

Alberta's population is about 4.1 million. Of that, about 2.4 million (59%) live in the Calgary and Edmonton regions. So one would expect that Calgary and Edmonton ridings should make up ~59% of the Alberta legislature, right? That would be equal representation by population. Except that's not how our government is set up. Right now, Calgary and Edmonton combine to have 44 out of 87 seats in the government, or 50.6% representation. In other words, if you live in one of the two big cities, your individual vote is worth less than someone who lives in a rural area.

[Resolute 14]

The number and quality of threadjacks in this thread is really quite breathtaking!

[Doodlebug]

I understood that. I just think the people of Alberta would be better served by a stronger opposition, rather than the rural ridings having a larger say in the supermajoritarian governments we have currently.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The number and quality of threadjacks in this thread is really quite breathtaking!

Poor Scots....

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The number and quality of threadjacks in this thread is really quite breathtaking!

But what will this mean for Scottish Soccer? Will Celtic and Rangers unite?

What about the price of Scotch? Should I be hoarding scotch in anticipation of the upcoming Scottish apocalypse?

How will this year's Robbie Burns day be celebrated? Will the newly freed scots abandon haggis and bagpipes?

These are burning questions for which I MUST have the answers!

[#-3]

I'm along way from the situation and not well informed on all of the issues, but I think with 97% voter registration that is a positive sign for the no side.

Moderates, and undecided voters will lean to the status quo in most situations. And almost everyone registering to vote tells me that the moderates will be coming out to vote.

So I'm guessing No is at least 57% or more.