4 ms·

> He manipulated the rules to try to squash it The question was "Should Scotland be an independent country?". 16 year olds were allowed to vote. The was an 85%

> He manipulated the rules to try to squash it The question was "Should Scotland be an independent country?". 16 year olds were allowed to vote. The was an 85% turn out. And Cameron's government presented, and voted for, the legislation so that a referendum was legitimate. How on earth do you come to conclude that he manipulated the rules to try to quash it? > There’s democracy in there somewhere Yeah, the bit where the people of Scotland voted on independence.

Kaibeezy 4y ago
I could have been a bit clearer. What he wanted to squash was not the vote but the independence movement. He set the bar low, expected the Scots wouldn’t clear it, and then there would be incontrovertible proof it would never happen. But then it nearly passed, and we’ve had a decade of SNP focusing on independence relentlessly to the detriment of their other responsibilities of governance. And then Cameron made the exact same gamble on Brexit and lost, incidentally throwing kerosene on the Scottish situation. Biggest loser.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > But then it nearly passed I'm a complete outsider, and I just looked the Scottish referendum up on wikipedia. It says that more than 55% voted against independence and less than 45% for. This is an absolute landslide. What exactly do you mean by "nearly passed" ?
  - Kaibeezy 4y ago
    When the referendum was announced, the expected result was in the neighborhood of 60/40, but “Yes” made big unexpected gains. At one point shortly before the vote opinion polling collapsed the “No” lead as low as 51/49. Cameron panicked and started making wild promises (aye, exactly like with the Brexit vote). The result pulled back a bit, but the SNP were energized. They almost reached 50% in the next general election and have completely dominated Scottish politics since.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      It looks like you were involved, and maybe even emotionally invested in the outcome of the referendum. But the polls and promises don't have much relevance. The fact was the outcome was 55/45, and the participation was about 85%. In modern times, when margins of victory are generally 5% or less, a more than 10% margin is absolutely huge. Here's some of the most famous vote results in the last decade: - Brexit: 51.9/48.1, margin 3.8% - Biden vs Trump: 51.3/46.8, margin 4.5% (of course, in the US the President is chosen via an indirect method, so the raw percentages don't matter per se) - Trump vs Clinton: 46.1/48.2, margin -2.1% -> Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college
      - Kaibeezy 4y ago
        An election and a referendum are two vastly different things. The results of an election are for one cycle, whereas referenda are (ostensibly) permanent. Cameron set both thresholds at 50%, but something like 60% would have been more appropriate. With Scotland, it’s a small population, aging rapidly, and yes, a very emotional issue. Support for independence rises and falls, but generally the “sea level” has been rising gradually. A vote coinciding with an unusually high tide could definitely lift it over. Compare to Brexit right now. Current polls show 57/43 in favor of reversing it. Cameron gambled on both of these as immediate-term political devices. Setting the low threshold was designed to show both independence and Brexit had no chance of ever passing. When Brexit did pass, Cameron resigned.

Kaibeezy 4y ago

I could have been a bit clearer. What he wanted to squash was not the vote but the independence movement. He set the bar low, expected the Scots wouldn’t clear it, and then there would be incontrovertible proof it would never happen. But then it nearly passed, and we’ve had a decade of SNP focusing on independence relentlessly to the detriment of their other responsibilities of governance. And then Cameron made the exact same gamble on Brexit and lost, incidentally throwing kerosene on the Scottish situation. Biggest loser.

credit_guy 4y ago
> But then it nearly passed I'm a complete outsider, and I just looked the Scottish referendum up on wikipedia. It says that more than 55% voted against independence and less than 45% for. This is an absolute landslide. What exactly do you mean by "nearly passed" ?
- Kaibeezy 4y ago
  When the referendum was announced, the expected result was in the neighborhood of 60/40, but “Yes” made big unexpected gains. At one point shortly before the vote opinion polling collapsed the “No” lead as low as 51/49. Cameron panicked and started making wild promises (aye, exactly like with the Brexit vote). The result pulled back a bit, but the SNP were energized. They almost reached 50% in the next general election and have completely dominated Scottish politics since.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    It looks like you were involved, and maybe even emotionally invested in the outcome of the referendum. But the polls and promises don't have much relevance. The fact was the outcome was 55/45, and the participation was about 85%. In modern times, when margins of victory are generally 5% or less, a more than 10% margin is absolutely huge. Here's some of the most famous vote results in the last decade: - Brexit: 51.9/48.1, margin 3.8% - Biden vs Trump: 51.3/46.8, margin 4.5% (of course, in the US the President is chosen via an indirect method, so the raw percentages don't matter per se) - Trump vs Clinton: 46.1/48.2, margin -2.1% -> Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college
    - Kaibeezy 4y ago
      An election and a referendum are two vastly different things. The results of an election are for one cycle, whereas referenda are (ostensibly) permanent. Cameron set both thresholds at 50%, but something like 60% would have been more appropriate. With Scotland, it’s a small population, aging rapidly, and yes, a very emotional issue. Support for independence rises and falls, but generally the “sea level” has been rising gradually. A vote coinciding with an unusually high tide could definitely lift it over. Compare to Brexit right now. Current polls show 57/43 in favor of reversing it. Cameron gambled on both of these as immediate-term political devices. Setting the low threshold was designed to show both independence and Brexit had no chance of ever passing. When Brexit did pass, Cameron resigned.