We, Britain first of course, are the carbon imperialists bar none and must make amends. Must repent, be contrite, humble, apologetic, restitutory. Starting with our own people of course.
I'd like to see some evidence of this statement. It strikes me, at first blush, as the inverse of British patriotism, putting Britain instead at the centre of the world's problems. I think it is far too Anglo-centric, but let's see if there is any evidentiary support.
We, Britain first of course, are the carbon imperialists bar none and must make amends. Must repent, be contrite, humble, apologetic, restitutory. Starting with our own people of course.
I'd like to see some evidence of this statement. It strikes me, at first blush, as the inverse of British patriotism, putting Britain instead at the centre of the world's problems. I think it is far too Anglo-centric, but let's see if there is any evidentiary support.
Where did the industrial revolution start?
So... the industrial revolution was a Bad Thing and should never have happened?
One could make a case for this but it is quite a radical one.
We, Britain first of course, are the carbon imperialists bar none and must make amends. Must repent, be contrite, humble, apologetic, restitutory. Starting with our own people of course.
I'd like to see some evidence of this statement. It strikes me, at first blush, as the inverse of British patriotism, putting Britain instead at the centre of the world's problems. I think it is far too Anglo-centric, but let's see if there is any evidentiary support.
Where did the industrial revolution start?
So... the industrial revolution was a Bad Thing and should never have happened?
One could make a case for this but it is quite a radical one.
It was a thing. Its survivors have benefitted enormously. At enormous, unsustainable cost.
We, Britain first of course, are the carbon imperialists bar none and must make amends. Must repent, be contrite, humble, apologetic, restitutory. Starting with our own people of course.
I'd like to see some evidence of this statement. It strikes me, at first blush, as the inverse of British patriotism, putting Britain instead at the centre of the world's problems. I think it is far too Anglo-centric, but let's see if there is any evidentiary support.
Where did the industrial revolution start?
That is insufficient to answer my question. You don't have to answer it of course, but I am not going to think of your argument for you.
We, Britain first of course, are the carbon imperialists bar none and must make amends. Must repent, be contrite, humble, apologetic, restitutory. Starting with our own people of course.
I'd like to see some evidence of this statement. It strikes me, at first blush, as the inverse of British patriotism, putting Britain instead at the centre of the world's problems. I think it is far too Anglo-centric, but let's see if there is any evidentiary support.
Where did the industrial revolution start?
That is insufficient to answer my question. You don't have to answer it of course, but I am not going to think of your argument for you.
We've been doing it for longer than anyone, we exported it, the world followed it, for well over a century. We were killing tens of thousands of our own citizens every year by industrial pollution in to the '50s. It's up to us, to Scotland more realistically, to lead the way.
Give us independence and we'll lead unhindered by the shackles of Westminster. We're already there with 100% renewable electricity. A long way to go, however, in building efficiency and transport.
Give us independence and we'll lead unhindered by the shackles of Westminster. We're already there with 100% renewable electricity. A long way to go, however, in building efficiency and transport.
Just make independence intrinsic to an SNP majority in 26 months.
As well as giving the land back to itself. The quarter of it 'owned' by 12 men for a start.
Why 26 months? Are you predicting a general election in Jan 2025?
Of course, the Scottish Government have said that if the court case doesn't say they can hold a referendum (in October 2023) then the SNP and SGP will fight the next general election on independence - so a result of 50% votes cast +1 being for SNP or SGP (or, other parties that can sign up to a "coalition for independence" as there are other smaller parties such as the Scottish Socialists who support independence) will be interpreted as the people of Scotland voting for independence.
In the 2019 election the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland, with 1% for SGP (who didn't stand in all constituencies - but still got twice the votes that the Brexit Party managed). At the Parliamentary election last year the SNP+SGP won 72 out of 129 seats (in a more proportional system than for the UK Parliament), though I admit that was only 48.4% of the regional vote share - 50.1% if Alba are included (though the chances of them being able to agree to the vision of a "coalition for independence", or their policies being acceptable to other members of such a coalition, are very slim). The polls are indicating increasing support for SGP and to a lesser extent SNP since the election last year.
There are limited powers to allow communities and some individual tenants (eg: crofters) to buy land from the very few large land owners in Scotland. The scope of such powers is limited by the devolution settlement - independence would allow the Scottish Government to extend those powers, although whether the SNP (aka "Tartan Tories") would support that remains to be seen.
Why 26 months? Are you predicting a general election in Jan 2025?
Of course, the Scottish Government have said that if the court case doesn't say they can hold a referendum (in October 2023) then the SNP and SGP will fight the next general election on independence - so a result of 50% votes cast +1 being for SNP or SGP (or, other parties that can sign up to a "coalition for independence" as there are other smaller parties such as the Scottish Socialists who support independence) will be interpreted as the people of Scotland voting for independence.
In the 2019 election the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland, with 1% for SGP (who didn't stand in all constituencies - but still got twice the votes that the Brexit Party managed). At the Parliamentary election last year the SNP+SGP won 72 out of 129 seats (in a more proportional system than for the UK Parliament), though I admit that was only 48.4% of the regional vote share - 50.1% if Alba are included (though the chances of them being able to agree to the vision of a "coalition for independence", or their policies being acceptable to other members of such a coalition, are very slim). The polls are indicating increasing support for SGP and to a lesser extent SNP since the election last year.
There are limited powers to allow communities and some individual tenants (eg: crofters) to buy land from the very few large land owners in Scotland. The scope of such powers is limited by the devolution settlement - independence would allow the Scottish Government to extend those powers, although whether the SNP (aka "Tartan Tories") would support that remains to be seen.
Jan 2025 is the latest it can be. I can't see the Tory shower calling a snap election on the basis of any success. The Brecession will last at least that long.
So, there's a real prospect of "coalition for independence"? I hope so. The UK does not deserve Scotland. And you've just ruined my day with 'SNP (aka "Tartan Tories")' opposing land reform, continuing the tragedy of the commons. Scotland doesn't deserve Scotland it looks like.
I hope there isn't a January election - no one likes campaigning in winter, delivering leaflets and chapping doors in the cold and the dark, and over Christmas too. The electorate are also less likely to be happy to open their doors and talk at that time too. But, maybe that'll suit the Conservatives, have an election when no one's able to really campaign. My hope is that they'll call an election for a normal spring date - May 2024 at the latest.
File under "how I think politics should work" - elections need to be called at a time of year when campaigning is practical, because an election needs to be fought with the electorate given a chance to question politicians about their policies. Mid-winter, when people are less likely to leave home for hustings in the evening, when campaigners are reluctant to chap doors after dark and voters less likely to open the door and chat, when getting out to cast a vote is more of a struggle is less than ideal. Summer, when many people are off on their holidays is also not a good time for an election campaign. That leaves spring or autumn for an election - and in the UK traditionally the choice has been for the spring. Though an election in early-mid October 2024 would also satisfy that "elections should be held at a time when proper campaigning can be conducted" and thus be a decent candidate for a last possible date for the next election, my preference would still be for the traditional spring election - hence my May 2024.
Of course postal voting is changing the character of elections in the UK, so that by the next general election postal votes are likely to be more than a quarter of those cast. Given that postal ballots tend to be cast early in the campaign the importance of the campaign, particularly its latter development, has reduced impact. I'm not sure I applaud this trend, but it's a fact of life unlikely to change. (Postal voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot; and I think that the able-bodied should be required to make some positive effort to exercise their right). On the positive side postal voting would seem to reduce objections to winter campaigns.
The change to postal voting will inevitably change the timing of campaigning - there will be more emphasis on chapping doors and getting literature out before postal ballots are delivered, and probably less insane running around to talk to people in the last week. It will require parties to select candidates a bit earlier so that they can hit the campaign trail soon enough to talk to people earlier, and it will almost certainly require hustings to be run earlier in the campaign. That doesn't change the objections to winter campaigning, because there'll still need to be the same amount of leg work delivering stuff and chapping doors in the cold and the dark.
I don't know in what way postal voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot, at least no more so than voting in person. Just like in person voting, there's a process of checking off the name of the voter against the register with the (sealed) ballot papers then put to one side. When the postal ballots are opened during the count the information that identifies the voter is not available, all that the counters see are the same marks on the paper as for ballots cast in person.
Furtive Gander: How about a ten quid voucher to spend in your local high street independent grocer if you turn up to vote on polling day?
.
........ a flat rate of £10 quid, of course, would be a greater incentive to the poorer section of the electorate than the better off. Perhaps millionaires would merit a greater cash incentive if they haven't already purchased their peerages!
I don't know in what way postal voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot, at least no more so than voting in person. Just like in person voting, there's a process of checking off the name of the voter against the register with the (sealed) ballot papers then put to one side. When the postal ballots are opened during the count the information that identifies the voter is not available, all that the counters see are the same marks on the paper as for ballots cast in person.
The issue is coercion at the point of casting the vote, not scrutiny afterwards. In a polling station you can't (barring people who need assistance) see how other people are voting. In a household with (say) a domineering partner it's easy to imagine how one person one vote could become two people two votes, both decided by the domineering partner. It's an allegation levelled at minority communities with particularly patriarchal family norms most often, but it's a risk in any unequal relationship.
I don't know in what way postal voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot, at least no more so than voting in person. Just like in person voting, there's a process of checking off the name of the voter against the register with the (sealed) ballot papers then put to one side. When the postal ballots are opened during the count the information that identifies the voter is not available, all that the counters see are the same marks on the paper as for ballots cast in person.
The issue is coercion at the point of casting the vote, not scrutiny afterwards. In a polling station you can't (barring people who need assistance) see how other people are voting. In a household with (say) a domineering partner it's easy to imagine how one person one vote could become two people two votes, both decided by the domineering partner. It's an allegation levelled at minority communities with particularly patriarchal family norms most often, but it's a risk in any unequal relationship.
And surely it would also become much easier to sell your vote - you can demonstrate to the buyer that you are voting in a specified way, put it in the envelope and they could then go and post it. Probably not worth it for small numbers of votes, but if the numbers become larger a few hundred could well swing it in a tight race.
The registration of electors, IMO, has become increasingly lax over the years. In the early post-WWII period the register was compiled and regularly revised by house to house visits by employees of the local authority. In my experience that is no longer the case so that the bias of the electoral roll is towards over-registration, though against that is the consequence of the Poll Tax which acted as a discouragement.
Accurate registration is not only important for the integrity of the process, but the distribution of parliamentary constituencies rests on the distribution of the registered electorate. There is a case for such distribution to be based on census returns, as in the USA, as not only is register less reliable than formerly but also discriminates in favour of concentrations of the more elderly in the population.
The increasing popularity of postal voting clearly compromises the (secret) ballot which was introduced to protect small tenant farmers against landowners and manual workers against their employers. The ballot also protected shopkeepers against their customers! Latterly it may have protected wives against husbands.
.......then there is the issue of voter suppression.
Anyway, who cares about all this in what is rapidly transitioning into a post-democratic age, though replete with elections?
@Kwesi first of all, it's not only physically disabled people who may struggle to vote in person - all types of disabilities can and do affect someone's ability to vote in person. There are lots of reasons why voting in person may be difficult, eg being an on-call emergency worker or having caregiving responsibilities - often carers of adult dependents have a much harder time voting for instance because alternative care is so much harder to get for adults than for children.
Anyway, who cares about all this in what is rapidly transitioning into a post-democratic age, though replete with elections?
Well, it's one thing to be undemocratic, it's another to pretend to be democratic. It's worse than being undemocratic because an undemocratic state might still recognise other rights and try to fulfil its own laws. If people are supposed to have democratic rights to vote freely which in fact they cannot exercise, the state is not only undemocratic but also corrupt, with the rule of law in question. This latter is IMO a worse fault than lack of democracy per se.
Pamona@Kwesi first of all, it's not only physically disabled people who may struggle to vote in person - all types of disabilities can and do affect someone's ability to vote in person. There are lots of reasons why voting in person may be difficult, eg being an on-call emergency worker or having caregiving responsibilities - often carers of adult dependents have a much harder time voting for instance because alternative care is so much harder to get for adults than for children.
Here's the thing, Pamona, turnouts were at their highest in the 1950s when the postal ballot was much more restricted.
Pamona@Kwesi first of all, it's not only physically disabled people who may struggle to vote in person - all types of disabilities can and do affect someone's ability to vote in person. There are lots of reasons why voting in person may be difficult, eg being an on-call emergency worker or having caregiving responsibilities - often carers of adult dependents have a much harder time voting for instance because alternative care is so much harder to get for adults than for children.
Here's the thing, Pamona, turnouts were at their highest in the 1950s when the postal ballot was much more restricted.
Not sure how relevant that is given the huge social changes in the intervening years.
Plus the fact that a lot more people with complex medical conditions survive to adulthood and people live with age-related medical conditions for much longer.
Pamona@Kwesi first of all, it's not only physically disabled people who may struggle to vote in person - all types of disabilities can and do affect someone's ability to vote in person. There are lots of reasons why voting in person may be difficult, eg being an on-call emergency worker or having caregiving responsibilities - often carers of adult dependents have a much harder time voting for instance because alternative care is so much harder to get for adults than for children.
Here's the thing, Pamona, turnouts were at their highest in the 1950s when the postal ballot was much more restricted.
Not sure how relevant that is given the huge social changes in the intervening years.
Plus the fact that a lot more people with complex medical conditions survive to adulthood and people live with age-related medical conditions for much longer.
Also in the 1950s many disabled people were just shut up in homes rather than cared for by family, and there was also little recognition of the ways in which intellectual disabilities or mental illness might make voting more difficult.
(also, my username is right there on my post that you (Kwesi) could have just quoted rather than misspelled)
I wonder is there any practical or technological way in which people could be allowed to vote from home or in advance in a more secure manner. For example:
* opening advance in-person polling booths a few weeks before the election
* "home visits" by electoral staff so that a "secret ballot" could still be done for home voters
* some form of encryption so that people could only vote online at home in such a way that if necessary they could deceive coercive members of their household when voting.
Apologies, Pomona, for my spelling. A better explanation for heavier voting in the 1950s than today was because the electorate were convinced it mattered. Incidentally, the malady explanation for much lower participation today doesn't really stand up when one notes that voters between 18 and 35 only vote half as much as AOPs. I would have thought, Arethosemyfeet, that the "huge social change" accounting for the reduction in popular participation is less a medical one than the collapse of working class politics and the need for middle class solidarity to check its progress.
But nobody has said that 'malady' is the reason for lower voter turnout? I just pointed out that there are a lot of reasons as to why someone might benefit from a postal vote, that isn't just due to physical disability. I literally said that an on-call emergency worker would find voting in person difficult, for example. The issue was you suggesting that 'only' physically disabled people would struggle to vote in person.
......sorry OAPs (not AOPs), apologies to you! Mind you, the idea if Age Old Pensioners has a certain attraction when one recalls the maturity of vintage wines and Napoleon Brandy. Wise Old Nestors to a man and woman, indeed!
I have used postal ballots on two occasions - one set of elections when I was out of the country (for which postal voting is very hit and miss, I only got one vote in out of three elections with on the other two occasions the ballot papers either not arriving or arriving too late), and for the Scottish elections in 2021 during Covid where there was a specific request from authorities for people to use a postal ballot because of limitations on the numbers of people who could use a polling station.
There are lots of reason to use a postal ballot, and removing that option would disenfranchise a lot of people.
Comparison with previous times can cause all sorts of problems, because things have changed a lot. First, people needing postal ballots because they're away have increased with more people travelling for work or leisure, more people are living long term with conditions that leave them shut in at home (or a home) especially those who don't have someone who can take them to the polling station. Also, I know that over the last decade or so here there's been a tendency towards merging polling stations so that several ballot boxes are in the same building with the number of different buildings used decreasing. If that trend has been ongoing for a long time then we'll have significantly increased the distance people need to travel to get to a polling station to vote in person. Also, political parties no longer chap doors as much, and in the process don't identify those who need help to get to the polling station, and the increasing issues relating to Safeguarding makes having volunteers with a car driving voters to polling stations a lot more difficult.
Obsessing over the economy, stupid (that's me by the way), I cannot get over the simplistic fact that average per capita UK national wealth per family is a million dollars, or quid now. Any system that does not level up to that is a failure.
Even with housing, a million per household is a long way from the experience of most people. Even including the value of my home (including that which the mortgage company will still want) and my wealth is an order of magnitude below that - and I consider myself to be wealthy.
Obsessing over the economy, stupid (that's me by the way), I cannot get over the simplistic fact that average per capita UK national wealth per family is a million dollars, or quid now.
Median household net wealth in Great Britain was £302,500, a marginal increase on the previous period but a 20% increase compared with July 2006 to June 2008, after adjusting for inflation.
Still there's plenty of room for leveling up, even if a large percentage of wealth is held as property:
Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.
Why 26 months? Are you predicting a general election in Jan 2025?
Of course, the Scottish Government have said that if the court case doesn't say they can hold a referendum (in October 2023) then the SNP and SGP will fight the next general election on independence - so a result of 50% votes cast +1 being for SNP or SGP (or, other parties that can sign up to a "coalition for independence" as there are other smaller parties such as the Scottish Socialists who support independence) will be interpreted as the people of Scotland voting for independence.
In the 2019 election the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland, with 1% for SGP (who didn't stand in all constituencies - but still got twice the votes that the Brexit Party managed). At the Parliamentary election last year the SNP+SGP won 72 out of 129 seats (in a more proportional system than for the UK Parliament), though I admit that was only 48.4% of the regional vote share - 50.1% if Alba are included (though the chances of them being able to agree to the vision of a "coalition for independence", or their policies being acceptable to other members of such a coalition, are very slim). The polls are indicating increasing support for SGP and to a lesser extent SNP since the election last year.
There are limited powers to allow communities and some individual tenants (eg: crofters) to buy land from the very few large land owners in Scotland. The scope of such powers is limited by the devolution settlement - independence would allow the Scottish Government to extend those powers, although whether the SNP (aka "Tartan Tories") would support that remains to be seen.
If you manage to scrape just over 50% that means that nearly 50% will be dragged out of the UK against their will.
The EU is a treaty organisation of sovereign nations working together. An organisation any sane person would want their nation to be a part of ... and, indeed in 2016 an organisation that 60% of people who voted here wanted this nation to be part of.
The UK is a union of previously independent nation states (conventionally England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland - although depending on when you consider the start of the formation of that union you might want to include Cornwall, or the parts of northern England known as the Danelaw). A union to the benefit of the English crown and Parliament, but forced upon the people of the other nations - by strength of arms in the case of Ireland and Wales, by force of economic and financial power in the case of Scotland. Most of the rest of the English empire has achieved independence, maybe it's time to call an end to the whole Empire.
The vast, vast majority of that is housing, however, so not a meaningful figure for most.
...and, of course, the financial value of a house might be quite different depending on its location, but the utility of that house is the same. A normal family house is a pretty similar shape and size anywhere in the country, but might vary in price by a factor of 3 or more.
The vast, vast majority of that is housing, however, so not a meaningful figure for most.
...and, of course, the financial value of a house might be quite different depending on its location, but the utility of that house is the same. A normal family house is a pretty similar shape and size anywhere in the country, but might vary in price by a factor of 3 or more.
It's actually worse than that. The size of home that a family might reasonably expect to have is vastly different in different locations. A family of 4 might count themselves lucky to get a 2 bedroom flat in London, but the same family in the Hebrides would normally (for your quoted 1/3 the price) expect a 3-4 bedroom detached house on a fenced quarter acre plot
The EU is a treaty organisation of sovereign nations working together. An organisation any sane person would want their nation to be a part of ... and, indeed in 2016 an organisation that 60% of people who voted here wanted this nation to be part of.
The UK is a union of previously independent nation states (conventionally England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland - although depending on when you consider the start of the formation of that union you might want to include Cornwall, or the parts of northern England known as the Danelaw). A union to the benefit of the English crown and Parliament, but forced upon the people of the other nations - by strength of arms in the case of Ireland and Wales, by force of economic and financial power in the case of Scotland. Most of the rest of the English empire has achieved independence, maybe it's time to call an end to the whole Empire.
You lost me when you implied that 52 % of UK voters are insane.
The EU is a treaty organisation of sovereign nations working together. An organisation any sane person would want their nation to be a part of ... and, indeed in 2016 an organisation that 60% of people who voted here wanted this nation to be part of.
The UK is a union of previously independent nation states (conventionally England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland - although depending on when you consider the start of the formation of that union you might want to include Cornwall, or the parts of northern England known as the Danelaw). A union to the benefit of the English crown and Parliament, but forced upon the people of the other nations - by strength of arms in the case of Ireland and Wales, by force of economic and financial power in the case of Scotland. Most of the rest of the English empire has achieved independence, maybe it's time to call an end to the whole Empire.
You lost me when you implied that 52 % of UK voters are insane.
The EU is a treaty organisation of sovereign nations working together. An organisation any sane person would want their nation to be a part of ... and, indeed in 2016 an organisation that 60% of people who voted here wanted this nation to be part of.
The UK is a union of previously independent nation states (conventionally England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland - although depending on when you consider the start of the formation of that union you might want to include Cornwall, or the parts of northern England known as the Danelaw). A union to the benefit of the English crown and Parliament, but forced upon the people of the other nations - by strength of arms in the case of Ireland and Wales, by force of economic and financial power in the case of Scotland. Most of the rest of the English empire has achieved independence, maybe it's time to call an end to the whole Empire.
You lost me when you implied that 52 % of UK voters are insane.
If the shoe fits...
No wonder that it was so easy for Johnson to win the 2019 election.
......and how did Scotland come into being and establish its present borders? Perhaps it, too, is an Empire than merits dismemberment.
If there are parts of Scotland that wish to separate they can elect pro-independence MSPs and/or councillors and seek a referendum to achieve it. There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Arethosemyfeet There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
Arethosemyfeet There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
I'm quite a long way from the Scottish borders here in the north Midlands but I'd love to be independent of our current Londoncentric administration. I notice the latest proposal to put some decent rail routes in around here has been scuppered. I'd throw my lot in with Edinburgh over London any day.
There’s certainly a quite a few in Cumbria who might feel they’d be better off with Edinburgh than London, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Northumbria was similar.
I know at least one person in Northumbria, living in that area between the border and Hadrian's Wall, who would be very happy for an independent Scotland with the border re-aligned along the Wall.
Historically, Cumbria had been part of the old Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Northumbrian kingdom had extended north to Edinburgh. So, both sides of the country have historical precedent to build on in their claim to be part of Scotland.
Alan Cresswell: Historically, Cumbria had been part of the old Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Northumbrian kingdom had extended north to Edinburgh. So, both sides of the country have historical precedent to build on in their claim to be part of Scotland.
Indeed, you could have included the cultural extent of Celtic Christianity a la Bede within your geography. I think, however, that KarlLB might seek a better historical salvation in the revival of Mercia.
As much as I'm romantically attracted to the early mediaeval configuration of what are described as the British Isles, my main point is that its political divisions have been malleable so that as there is no presumption about the territorial extent of the United Kingdom and the same applies to its constituent parts. Ireland may well be reunited outside the UK in the not too distant future, and England or rUK and Scotland also redefined. At present there is probably a strong democratic case for a substantial part of the Scottish Borders to remain in the UK should Scexit become the Scottish electorate's wish as a whole. But what has democracy to do with the delineation of national boundaries? The Scots who rail against the anti-democratic refusal of the UK Government to grant a referendum would not be sympathetic to the democratic will of its borderers to remain in the UK.
Comments
Where did the industrial revolution start?
So... the industrial revolution was a Bad Thing and should never have happened?
One could make a case for this but it is quite a radical one.
It was a thing. Its survivors have benefitted enormously. At enormous, unsustainable cost.
That is insufficient to answer my question. You don't have to answer it of course, but I am not going to think of your argument for you.
We've been doing it for longer than anyone, we exported it, the world followed it, for well over a century. We were killing tens of thousands of our own citizens every year by industrial pollution in to the '50s. It's up to us, to Scotland more realistically, to lead the way.
Just make independence intrinsic to an SNP majority in 26 months.
As well as giving the land back to itself. The quarter of it 'owned' by 12 men for a start.
Of course, the Scottish Government have said that if the court case doesn't say they can hold a referendum (in October 2023) then the SNP and SGP will fight the next general election on independence - so a result of 50% votes cast +1 being for SNP or SGP (or, other parties that can sign up to a "coalition for independence" as there are other smaller parties such as the Scottish Socialists who support independence) will be interpreted as the people of Scotland voting for independence.
In the 2019 election the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland, with 1% for SGP (who didn't stand in all constituencies - but still got twice the votes that the Brexit Party managed). At the Parliamentary election last year the SNP+SGP won 72 out of 129 seats (in a more proportional system than for the UK Parliament), though I admit that was only 48.4% of the regional vote share - 50.1% if Alba are included (though the chances of them being able to agree to the vision of a "coalition for independence", or their policies being acceptable to other members of such a coalition, are very slim). The polls are indicating increasing support for SGP and to a lesser extent SNP since the election last year.
There are limited powers to allow communities and some individual tenants (eg: crofters) to buy land from the very few large land owners in Scotland. The scope of such powers is limited by the devolution settlement - independence would allow the Scottish Government to extend those powers, although whether the SNP (aka "Tartan Tories") would support that remains to be seen.
Jan 2025 is the latest it can be. I can't see the Tory shower calling a snap election on the basis of any success. The Brecession will last at least that long.
So, there's a real prospect of "coalition for independence"? I hope so. The UK does not deserve Scotland. And you've just ruined my day with 'SNP (aka "Tartan Tories")' opposing land reform, continuing the tragedy of the commons. Scotland doesn't deserve Scotland it looks like.
How about a ten quid voucher to spend in your local high street independent grocer if you turn up to vote on polling day?
I don't know in what way postal voting compromises the secrecy of the ballot, at least no more so than voting in person. Just like in person voting, there's a process of checking off the name of the voter against the register with the (sealed) ballot papers then put to one side. When the postal ballots are opened during the count the information that identifies the voter is not available, all that the counters see are the same marks on the paper as for ballots cast in person.
........ a flat rate of £10 quid, of course, would be a greater incentive to the poorer section of the electorate than the better off. Perhaps millionaires would merit a greater cash incentive if they haven't already purchased their peerages!
The issue is coercion at the point of casting the vote, not scrutiny afterwards. In a polling station you can't (barring people who need assistance) see how other people are voting. In a household with (say) a domineering partner it's easy to imagine how one person one vote could become two people two votes, both decided by the domineering partner. It's an allegation levelled at minority communities with particularly patriarchal family norms most often, but it's a risk in any unequal relationship.
And surely it would also become much easier to sell your vote - you can demonstrate to the buyer that you are voting in a specified way, put it in the envelope and they could then go and post it. Probably not worth it for small numbers of votes, but if the numbers become larger a few hundred could well swing it in a tight race.
Accurate registration is not only important for the integrity of the process, but the distribution of parliamentary constituencies rests on the distribution of the registered electorate. There is a case for such distribution to be based on census returns, as in the USA, as not only is register less reliable than formerly but also discriminates in favour of concentrations of the more elderly in the population.
The increasing popularity of postal voting clearly compromises the (secret) ballot which was introduced to protect small tenant farmers against landowners and manual workers against their employers. The ballot also protected shopkeepers against their customers! Latterly it may have protected wives against husbands.
.......then there is the issue of voter suppression.
Anyway, who cares about all this in what is rapidly transitioning into a post-democratic age, though replete with elections?
Well, it's one thing to be undemocratic, it's another to pretend to be democratic. It's worse than being undemocratic because an undemocratic state might still recognise other rights and try to fulfil its own laws. If people are supposed to have democratic rights to vote freely which in fact they cannot exercise, the state is not only undemocratic but also corrupt, with the rule of law in question. This latter is IMO a worse fault than lack of democracy per se.
Here's the thing, Pamona, turnouts were at their highest in the 1950s when the postal ballot was much more restricted.
Not sure how relevant that is given the huge social changes in the intervening years.
Plus the fact that a lot more people with complex medical conditions survive to adulthood and people live with age-related medical conditions for much longer.
Also in the 1950s many disabled people were just shut up in homes rather than cared for by family, and there was also little recognition of the ways in which intellectual disabilities or mental illness might make voting more difficult.
(also, my username is right there on my post that you (Kwesi) could have just quoted rather than misspelled)
* opening advance in-person polling booths a few weeks before the election
* "home visits" by electoral staff so that a "secret ballot" could still be done for home voters
* some form of encryption so that people could only vote online at home in such a way that if necessary they could deceive coercive members of their household when voting.
There are lots of reason to use a postal ballot, and removing that option would disenfranchise a lot of people.
Comparison with previous times can cause all sorts of problems, because things have changed a lot. First, people needing postal ballots because they're away have increased with more people travelling for work or leisure, more people are living long term with conditions that leave them shut in at home (or a home) especially those who don't have someone who can take them to the polling station. Also, I know that over the last decade or so here there's been a tendency towards merging polling stations so that several ballot boxes are in the same building with the number of different buildings used decreasing. If that trend has been ongoing for a long time then we'll have significantly increased the distance people need to travel to get to a polling station to vote in person. Also, political parties no longer chap doors as much, and in the process don't identify those who need help to get to the polling station, and the increasing issues relating to Safeguarding makes having volunteers with a car driving voters to polling stations a lot more difficult.
I'm not sure where you are getting that figure from, or how it's calculated. This is the last ONS series that would cover something similar: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2018tomarch2020
At that end it's probably mostly house values, as @Arethosemyfeet and @Alan Cresswell indicate above.
Still there's plenty of room for leveling up, even if a large percentage of wealth is held as property:
If you manage to scrape just over 50% that means that nearly 50% will be dragged out of the UK against their will.
Totally different. The EU is not a country ( It wasn't the last time I looked)
The UK is a union of previously independent nation states (conventionally England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland - although depending on when you consider the start of the formation of that union you might want to include Cornwall, or the parts of northern England known as the Danelaw). A union to the benefit of the English crown and Parliament, but forced upon the people of the other nations - by strength of arms in the case of Ireland and Wales, by force of economic and financial power in the case of Scotland. Most of the rest of the English empire has achieved independence, maybe it's time to call an end to the whole Empire.
...and, of course, the financial value of a house might be quite different depending on its location, but the utility of that house is the same. A normal family house is a pretty similar shape and size anywhere in the country, but might vary in price by a factor of 3 or more.
It's actually worse than that. The size of home that a family might reasonably expect to have is vastly different in different locations. A family of 4 might count themselves lucky to get a 2 bedroom flat in London, but the same family in the Hebrides would normally (for your quoted 1/3 the price) expect a 3-4 bedroom detached house on a fenced quarter acre plot
You lost me when you implied that 52 % of UK voters are insane.
If the shoe fits...
No wonder that it was so easy for Johnson to win the 2019 election.
If there are parts of Scotland that wish to separate they can elect pro-independence MSPs and/or councillors and seek a referendum to achieve it. There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
I'm quite a long way from the Scottish borders here in the north Midlands but I'd love to be independent of our current Londoncentric administration. I notice the latest proposal to put some decent rail routes in around here has been scuppered. I'd throw my lot in with Edinburgh over London any day.
Historically, Cumbria had been part of the old Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Northumbrian kingdom had extended north to Edinburgh. So, both sides of the country have historical precedent to build on in their claim to be part of Scotland.
Indeed, you could have included the cultural extent of Celtic Christianity a la Bede within your geography. I think, however, that KarlLB might seek a better historical salvation in the revival of Mercia.
As much as I'm romantically attracted to the early mediaeval configuration of what are described as the British Isles, my main point is that its political divisions have been malleable so that as there is no presumption about the territorial extent of the United Kingdom and the same applies to its constituent parts. Ireland may well be reunited outside the UK in the not too distant future, and England or rUK and Scotland also redefined. At present there is probably a strong democratic case for a substantial part of the Scottish Borders to remain in the UK should Scexit become the Scottish electorate's wish as a whole. But what has democracy to do with the delineation of national boundaries? The Scots who rail against the anti-democratic refusal of the UK Government to grant a referendum would not be sympathetic to the democratic will of its borderers to remain in the UK.