indyref 14 - the one with the polling day

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Come on in, sit down, and chew your nails with us.

Just read back, did we find out what SAVVY means?

A man has been arrested at a Clydebank polling station for allegedly assaulting a Labour councillor.

Not that I can see Member. I'm going to ask a friend of mine who votes yes what it's about.

I asked a question up-thread that may have been posted right in the middle of an, err, disagreement . Gist of it was, in the event of a Yes win, would Scotland still vote in the 2015 General Election, and what if any implications for the negotiations on independence?

Really confused by this one (easily done). Thanks to some of the most articulate and informed commentators I've seen, for these wonderful threads.

I think if it is a resounding yes or no, (which sounds unlikely), it will be easier for everyone to deal with. If it's close, it will be horrible.

Apparently SAVVY = Scotland Against Vilification Vote Yes

solomondaisy we can but hope

And yes SC's posts have been fab. I have enjoyed this thread greatly. There are some quotes I hope MN will save as a historical reference!

one that sounds quite wonderful. And even medicinal one could say, given the last few weeks.

chelsy that is interesting about the executive. Why did they go the route they did?

I have learnt a lot from this debate too. And gotten pretty scared. That hasn't gone away yet

SolomanDaisy The signals from the FTSE and exchange rates seem to suggest that the city is confident of a no. Which is a bit confusing, since most recent polls have given the difference as within their own margin of error, but the markets suggest some level of certainty. I wonder if it isn't going to be as narrow as people think?

That would also be my guess. If forced, I would say something like 56% No 44% Yes, but its all so up in the air, with variables with no known form, such as people who have never voted before, and 16-18 year olds, so that really is a guess. It could easily go the other way.

MuddyWellyNelly at the moment Scotland would still vote in 2015. Which could cause problems as with the current poll results giving labour about a 44 seat lead, and the fact Scotland tends to vote Labour, it could mean that Labour could be elected in 2015 and then not have a majority by 2016.

In terms of the negotiations, the timing of the general election I think makes it more likely that the politicians will stick to statements like "no currency union" because it has been shown to be very unpopular down south.

Haha - a rl mn friend and me were just saying the same about you stat. We will need your sort to provide some strategy and balance if there is a yes. I'll be in your cabinet!

left work as soon as I could as I couldn't concentrate, felt tired and stressed :(

Keep looking at news reports, its a wonder my boss hasn't pulled me up yet :(

But I can't help it, I'm so worried for the future.

My constituency has been in the news today for the wrong reasons. I did say the Yessers were intimidating around here.

Has anyone seen a breakdown of number of registered voters by council/count? I found one but the breakdown adds up to more than the total - somewhat worrying but....

See I don't get that. We shouldn't be allowed to vote in an election when we would be departing in 2016 if I have that right. That's going to royally piss off rUK voters and also how would that affect voting in Parliament when 50 odd seats would disappear? I have seen some stats that say it may not matter as much but surely the perception by the voting public is not going to be a good one?

Cheers Squoosh -

livingzuid Members of the Committees are selected so that the balance of the political parties in Parliament is retained.

I really don't know. Scotland its democracy aren't one of the more welcoming or open democracies to students of constitutions. I find the official reasons given on the SP's webpage not entirely satisfactory (in that they are generalised statements which could apply to any legislative structure however comprised and compliment the set up rather than effectively describing the reasons behind it.

My guess would be to enable control and centralisation.

This sentence "Members of the Committees are selected so that the balance of the political parties in Parliament is retained." for example sounds fine in principle, but in practice of course, those selected could be picked from those who favour a particular policy, or who less likely to contribute or stick their heads above the parapet.

A unicameral chamber means that legislation passed by the parliament is only reviewed by members of that parliament. There is no final check or balance on the parliament's power, no right of veto if you will, nor even a right to delay legislation. Which considering the criticism of Westminster, which does have such checks and balances built in, is ironic.

Thanks SC. But what about the players in Scotland. If say Labour replace SNP in Holyrood, would someone else become FM and carry on negotiations? Or are negotiations to be bi-partisan and not actually led by the current incumbents?

None of these are great scenarios and I hope never to have to find out how it would work.

Hmm that is interesting. It adds even more to the bs about. It is still very centralised rather than devolved regionally through Scotland? Says a lot and none of it good. I do understand people who vote yes in the hope they can have a clean sweep of the whole thing and start again. That would be very difficult to change otherwise.

That man is the most dangerous thing to happen to our country in a very long time.

Cedricsneer. What shall we call our new party?

It could matter if it's close LivingZuid. That's when Scottish votes tend to make a difference - so this current government would have been Tory rather than coalition, and there has been a couple of other times that we've swung it to Labour.

Right, that's 2 Nos from us done.

The Holyrood election isn't until 2016.

Argyll&Bute OneNight we've got islands

livingzuid apparently one of the plans is to give local authorities more powers, but as is usual in the Scottish democracy, its hard to find any claims and stated aims that are committed to. So basically no-one knows and the Scottish Parliament shall presumably do what it wants to do. As I said before, theres no constitutional checks and balances built into the system, so anything could happen really.

It's a BFN for Nicola Sturgeon

Ah sorry SC I'm dense, for whatever reason I figured that the general election applied to Holyrood as well. The shame...

Is Alex the Daddy Muddy