Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't know, it seems to work quite well in Germany if i recall correctly.

? Germany doesnt have any

Must be a different country, but I was pretty sure Germany has mandatory voting. I'll go check.

Edit: Well, Australasia does, nothing on Germany (yet).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


Edit: Well, Australasia does, nothing on Germany (yet).

And from what I've seen online, Australia has a pretty big issue with people showing up to the polls blitzed drunk attempting to vote.... They were even trying to pass a law in regards to "drunk voting"

 Sir Arun wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Most of the poll results discount the "not sure" results. I think that there is a significant amount of people who are either undecided or who are disinclined to take part in pre-voting polls who are generally uninterested in independence who will pad the "no" vote quite a lot more than might be predicted given the results of the online polls.

You think a person would get out of bed and take the pains of heading over to the voting booth just to vote No?

I'll give the benefit of doubt to the Yes voters, since they seem to be the far more passionate bunch!

Pretty much every person wanting Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow.

I dont think every person not caring about Scottish independence is going to vote tomorrow. And that might just make all the difference.

I think that the kinds of people who vote in online polls from polling agencies are the vocal fringes of each side of the debate with a core of normals in the middle. I think that the silent majority of people who will be voting who are on the edge one way or another will vote no.

I'm of course prepared to look at turnout and the totals for yes and no and be proven wrong

Just remember, if you guys vote "no" then Mel Gibson died for nothing!

 d-usa wrote:
Just remember, if you guys vote "no" then Mel Gibson died for nothing!

He probably should be on death row for that abomination of a film

At least some of the reporters are not afraid to ask the real questions:

Should The U.S. Deploy Troops To Scotland?

A tragedy is unfolding in Scotland.

One glance at this week’s headlines reveals that the region’s fractious political situation is intensifying, with separatist activists gaining more and more support every day. Barring something drastic, Scotland seems bound inexorably for a cataclysm.

Can the United States stand idly by as Scotland descends into civil war?

Scotland has just 5,000 combat troops, hardly enough to defend its government against the more than 1 million rebels claiming allegiance to the radical group YES who already are taking to the streets in droves.



In such circumstances, is inaction justifiable? How many Scots need to die before Obama says “Enough is enough” and steps in?

The United States has a moral imperative to intervene, starting immediately with air raids to break the militant separatists before they gain a stranglehold on power. But that will not be enough. We need boots on the ground as soon and in as great numbers as possible.

Scotland may yet recover from the devastating strife that has rent its populace in two. But it will take nothing less than a full-scale U.S. ground invasion to secure even a faint hope that years down the road, the Scots may govern themselves and, perhaps, hold democratic elections

 d-usa wrote:
At least some of the reporters are not afraid to ask the real questions:

Should The U.S. Deploy Troops To Scotland?

A tragedy is unfolding in Scotland.

One glance at this week’s headlines reveals that the region’s fractious political situation is intensifying, with separatist activists gaining more and more support every day. Barring something drastic, Scotland seems bound inexorably for a cataclysm.

Can the United States stand idly by as Scotland descends into civil war?

Scotland has just 5,000 combat troops, hardly enough to defend its government against the more than 1 million rebels claiming allegiance to the radical group YES who already are taking to the streets in droves.



In such circumstances, is inaction justifiable? How many Scots need to die before Obama says “Enough is enough” and steps in?

The United States has a moral imperative to intervene, starting immediately with air raids to break the militant separatists before they gain a stranglehold on power. But that will not be enough. We need boots on the ground as soon and in as great numbers as possible.

Scotland may yet recover from the devastating strife that has rent its populace in two. But it will take nothing less than a full-scale U.S. ground invasion to secure even a faint hope that years down the road, the Scots may govern themselves and, perhaps, hold democratic elections

Surely strategic airstrikes would be sufficient?

If the author is trying to critize foreign policy on Donbass and trying to come off as a smart guy who knows his stuff, he is sorely mistaken.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does the UK have mandatory voting?

God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.

Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does the UK have mandatory voting?

God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.

Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy

I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does the UK have mandatory voting?

God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.

Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy

I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.

Breaking up a union, you mean. It's more comparable to a country seceding from the EU via referendum.

 Sir Arun wrote:


Breaking up a union, you mean. It's more comparable to a country seceding from the EU via referendum.

Only if you have an unnatural obsession with de jure over de facto.

 Sir Arun wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does the UK have mandatory voting?

God no. 50% - 60% turnout in general elections is typically considered a good turnout.

Last I saw there was 97% registration (people who are eligible who have registered to vote) so at the very least this referendum has galvanized people to an extent about politics were as before there was a huge degree of apathy

I should certainly hope so. Breaking up a country is a fething momentous decision with drastically more far reaching consequences than deciding which variety of left-liberal socialist party gets to take its turn in Downing Street.

Breaking up a union, you mean. It's more comparable to a country seceding from the EU via referendum.

It's more comparable to one of the united states seceding from the union via referendum.

to me, this is all ho hum...


England should ask canada how we have kept quebec around all this time....

gotta love "special" regions


maybe we could trade quebec for scotland? Id totally go for that!

Was at the Yes rally in George Square today.

Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.

Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.

Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.

Good times. Roll on result friday!

 easysauce wrote:
to me, this is all ho hum...


England should ask canada how we have kept quebec around all this time....

gotta love "special" regions


maybe we could trade quebec for scotland? Id totally go for that!

Didn't you keep them because they would fall apart otherwise due to the benefits they gain from being with Canada?

Considering how often I see Canadians want to trade Quebec for..pretty much anything else.

I just read an interesting article on the economic effects o Scotland leaving.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/16/348018843/like-it-or-not-scotlands-drama-may-hit-your-wallet

I'm not sure which side I agree with at this point. There are positives, but there are definite negatives as well.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!

If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.

What wars would an Independent Scotland be fighting Orlanth? A defence force isn't going to be used for invasion.

We'll be getting rid of Nuclear weapons too.

It's all very well to scoff at those ideas but at least it's a hope in the heart of the Yes campaign. If it goes that way politicians will be damned if they don't follow through. They'll have caged themselves with a people they've politicised.

 Orlanth wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!

If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.

I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What wars would an Independent Scotland be fighting Orlanth? A defence force isn't going to be used for invasion.

We'll be getting rid of Nuclear weapons too.

I dont contest the nuclear free Scotland bit, I dont agree with the policy but it is logical.

As for the wars, Scotland like other europeasn countries may sent peace keepers to places. I can see Salmond wanting to grandstand and send troops to some warzone, if he doesnt someone else will. This isn't a critique, the UK does so, and so do nations smaller than Scotland. Ireland for example sends peacekeeprrs to Africa, and are good at it. Some of those men don't come home.
The ideology that Scotland will never get involved in wars again is. Besides we had a Scottish born prime Minister, backed by a party strongly represented by Scottish MP's who led the Uk into the illegal Iraq War. Scotland voted Blair in and cant pass that off as an English adventure.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's all very well to scoff at those ideas but at least it's a hope in the heart of the Yes campaign. If it goes that way politicians will be damned if they don't follow through. They'll have caged themselves with a people they've politicised.

'Hope' and 'change' are magic words used to make promises to peop,le that are largely vapour. Obama used hope and change to promise to bring troops home and close Gitmo, it hasn't happened.
Salmond offers hope and change with far less integrity than Obama. Scotland is heading to become the most centralised state in the western world, with nearly 100% of state funding centralised, a re-centralised police force and very few safeguards on power as the new Scottish constitution aims to do away with them.

Salmond has already got a track record for centralisation, control freakery and corruption. President Salmond will be an order of magnitude worse. We have already seen threats of punitive nationalisation of industries that are 'pro-Tory', if these comments, from very high up in the SNP, are to be taken seriously at all.

As for leaders 'caging themselves' don't count on it. Its standard Machiavellian politics to promise a lot, you need not deliver if you have centralised control. Its just ironic that the way things are heading iScotland will likely be far less free than it currently is.


There are honest policies that could lead people to vote Yes, and honest reasons to vote Yes, just as there are the opposite. However the given reasons for voting Yes, greater freedom and a better economy are based on vacuous information at best, and out and out lies for the main part.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:

I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.

An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians. Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.
As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Vote yes to abolish greed and poverty!
To abolish corruption and involvemenrt in war!

If the Yes vote gets its way this fellow will be colossally disappointed, assuming he actually believes a word he says and isn't just trying to hoodwink people.

I agree with what he says, I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I don't think it'll work.

Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.

 Orlanth wrote:

An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians.

Absolute rubbish, tackling poverty is every bodies job, but especially politicians.

 Orlanth wrote:

Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.

A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.

 Orlanth wrote:

As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

incorrect. Some see themselves as more equal, than others. But death or injury doesn't ask if your rich.

 Laemos wrote:
Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.

I now have a mental image of Alex Salmond in his hour of victory...getting murdered whilst on the loo.

Cheers.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Laemos wrote:
Does he know Scotland history? So much in game of thrones is based off stuff from Scotland. It's all smiles and please and thank you now but if they become independent it will be kilts and blue face paint and swords and murdering people at Christmas dinner before you know it is even happening.

I now have a mental image of Alex Salmond in his hour of victory...getting murdered whilst on the loo.

Cheers.

Strange I always have a mental image of him on a big plate with an apple in his mouth.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians.

Absolute rubbish, tackling poverty is every bodies job, but especially politicians.

Those who lead but cannot play realpolitic buy only poverty. ALL attempts at true equality only bring subjugation because you cant take human greed out of a large scale system.
Philanthropy is for individuals, government is for stability, and the maintenance of law and order.
A welfare state is not philanphropy, its stability and order.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.

A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.

Such a politician will drive his country to ruin, the welfare needs budget is infinite, the economy is not. There will always be more that people need, welfare cannot be maximised, and welfare cannot really be achieved at all without firm budgeting and a strong economy to pay for it.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

incorrect. Some see themselves as more equal, than others. But death or injury doesn't ask if your rich.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians.

Absolute rubbish, tackling poverty is every bodies job, but especially politicians.

 Orlanth wrote:

Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.

A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.

 Orlanth wrote:

As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

incorrect. Some see themselves as more equal, than others. But death or injury doesn't ask if your rich.

Politicians, through their incompetent ideological meddling, tend to exacerbate social inequalities not solve them.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

An end to poverty and inequality etc are nice sentiments, but tackling poverty is for philanthropists not politicians.

Absolute rubbish, tackling poverty is every bodies job, but especially politicians.

 Orlanth wrote:

Politicians must be concerned with steady government and a good economy which cannot be achieved unless you deal with those who make money, or worse form a draconian centralised state.

A politician should be concerned with the health and welfare of the whole country.

 Orlanth wrote:

As fro equality. All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

incorrect. Some see themselves as more equal, than others. But death or injury doesn't ask if your rich.

Politicians, through their incompetent ideological meddling, tend to exacerbate social inequalities not solve them.

Then it is best to go with regular corruption than the ideologically based sort. You get less corruption over all.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Was at the Yes rally in George Square today.

Fantastic time, friendly crowds and great atmosphere. Enjoyed waving my DIY flag although after around 6 hours my arms are pretty tired.

Some Unionists tried to disrupt the music at the front by jumping into the performance area with their Union Jacks and interrupting the musicians. They played on and the police took them away. They came back later and stood outside the Glasgow City Chambers and were met with a larger crowd of Yes supporters waving the flags across the road. These weren't just No Voters but SDL/BNP types. Complete morons out looking for a fight. Nobody was biting from Yes.

Made a new English pal at the rally, he's just recently up in Glasgow and we had a good chinwag. And they say Yes is full of anti-English bullies.

Good times. Roll on result friday!

Enjoy it while you can. If its yes the recession will come shortly for you. Hope you like unemployment.

You know Texas is taking notes and drafting their own referendum. That's why you already got a US flag with one star on it, and two stripes for "us vs them"!