The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


This is how afraid they are

Posted on October 19, 2016 by

Because fiddling it in 1979 worked so well in the long run.

supermaj

Stand by for the dead voting again, folks.

Print Friendly

    1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 19 10 16 10:57

      This is how afraid they are | speymouth

    158 to “This is how afraid they are”

    1. Dinnatouch says:

      Odd how a super majority wasn’t required for Brexit.

    2. starlaw says:

      Thin end of an awfully big wedge. Do not give an inch.

    3. James says:

      Move the goalposts all the time. I just hope that the country dies proud this time

    4. sarah says:

      They may be frightened – I hope they are – but I am getting scared at what they are prepared to do. Having kept MSM firmly in their pocket, how can we inform the electorate of the truth? I do write to our local newsletter on this subject but we were a 59:41 Yes polling district so a lot of folk here are aware – but there’s only 2000 people in this district! Sorry to be so lily-livered but…

    5. Ken says:

      Why 55, why not 60, 70 or 95?

    6. Sarah, i think its clear that in the event of indyref 2, a guaranteed wee blue book in every home in Scotland would be highly informative and perhaps this is something that should be planned now in readiness. I dont wish to put pressure on RevStu, but leaving it to the last month or two before a vote to organise the whole thing is difficult and rely s mainly on individuals in various areas to hand it out. Having a Plan A which is fully financed 6 months or longer before a voting date is the way to go. Press a button, off to the printers in bulk, then off to royal mail in bulk, pay the bills then sit back and watch the sparks. Would really turn indyref2 into a real debate.

    7. Macart says:

      Spooky what the loss of a mahoosive starting lead will do to your confidence innit? 🙄

    8. One_Scot says:

      Given that the Yoons want to raise the majority to 55% for Yes to win, it does not fill me full of confidence that they’re going to play fair in their attempts to win.

      I could be wrong, but I genuinely believe the postal voting process has evolved into a system that is open to being ‘massaged’ by the Yoon State should it be so inclined to do so.

    9. Oscar Taime says:

      Yup they winged it in the last two referenda, nearly lost the first, didn’t learn & lost the last.

      Next time they won’t be leaving anything to chance starting with trying not to have one, followed by imposing the need for super majority ironically based on the proof of the disastrous consequences of not doing so and getting Brexit which will of course also be used to show that leaving a Union is BAD.

      Then again we’ll be pushing to stay in a Union, the EU, only this time with Scotland’s interests directly represented at the table.

    10. Joemcg says:

      Yep the postals is where it’s at. 800,000 votes cast last time out of our tiny population? Nae danger. Why was it skewed so much for no the highest demographic out of all votes cast 70/30? We were conned.

    11. Vestas says:

      Postal voting should be banned, not just for indyref2 but for ALL elections/referenda.

      Postal voting is an open invitation to voter fraud and intimidation – especially in Muslim households where it is common practice for the (male) head of the family to demand (and get) all the voting forms intended for female members of the family.

      This isn’t some kind of islamophobia, its endemic – I’m sure we can all remember Judge Richard Mawrey (in 2005) finding six (Muslim) Labour councillors guilty of “massive, systemic and organised” postal voting fraud & described their behaviour as a “disgrace even for a banana republic”.

      You can see the same thing in Tower Hamlets (in 2015) – massive postal voting fraud amongst the Muslim community.

      Of course it suits Labour to have this happen as the vast majority of Muslim immigrants vote for them.

      I’m sure the Tories found postal voting useful in 2015 as well – very handy for those awkward marginals mmm?

    12. Bob Mack says:

      This was being proposed by Unionists during the last referendum. I read an article on this in a blog called Hands Across the Sea, which is aimed at American Unionists.and ex pats.
      They were troubled by the increase in the base vote of Yes, and felt the barrier had to be raised to counteract that increase.

      . I would never accept that proposal and I hope nobody on the Yes platform would either. We have enough on our plate fighting almost every media outlet and political party without handicapping ourselves even further.

    13. david says:

      Brexit 52% means brexit?

    14. Tartan Tory says:

      If a 55% majority is required, then that means that 45.1% can effectively dictate the future……

    15. Vronsky says:

      I suspect that in reality the majority required for Westminster recognition of Scottish independence will be whatever the majority actually is, plus one.

    16. Ross Lowe says:

      Gibraltar voted by 94% to remain in the EU and still not getting there way. We are playing against a stacked deck with all the Aces removed. Why not while we are repealing the 1972 European Communities Act don’t we repeal the Act of Union. Job done.

    17. Scott says:

      Yes they are afraid and will try any devious way to block us but 50+1 is good enough for me.

      PS I could not let this thought go having team GB at the palace did they have to consult with the Tank if it was ok for the Scots into that grand place,I would like the FM to have a dig at Ruthie about it tomorrow.

    18. Doug Daniel says:

      Okay Nigel Smith, we’ll give you what you want. But let’s make the question “Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom?”

      What’s that? Not so keen all of a sudden? Now there’s a surprise.

      Fiddled majorities are inherently anti-democratic. Personally, I wouldn’t even have super-majorities in parliament, where there’s a necessity to get two-thirds majorities to change certain things. If you have a binary question, then the onus should be on both sides to win the argument, rather than placing the burden exclusively on the “change” side. If the status quo is worth keeping, then it should be easy to win a simple majority.

      But at least it shows how much they’re shitting themselves.

    19. Sandra says:

      Doubtful they could make this stick with indyref and EUref as recent precedents.

    20. Sharny Dubs says:

      If they impose a 55% rule then that call into question the 2014 result surely?

    21. Robert Peffers says:

      How idiotic the Yoon Loons are and are becoming progressively more idiotic as the Scottish demands for independence continue to grow.

      Here we have a prime example of an over inflated yoon loon balloon’s imbecilic thought process by The Herald’s, grandly titled, “Scottish Political Editor”, Tom Gordon.

      First the yoons claimed the Scottish Government, who represent the legally sovereign people of Scotland, must have the express permission from their Westminster Establishment Masters, (who have no legal sovereignty over the people of Scotland), to hold a referendum.

      Then, after those delegated by the membership of the SNP give the SG a mandate to hold a referendum that the yoon Loons have claimed they cannot hold without Westminster’s express permission, they threaten to impose, “Super Majority”, rules upon the result of a referendum they claimed they will not allow the SG to hold in the first place.

      The man is an overinflated balloon and he has just developed a slow puncture that will see such as he deflated.

      How pathetic is that – “We won’t allow you to hold a referendum, but when you do we will impose a ‘Super Majority’, upon it – so there”. Na! Ni! Na! Ni! Na! Na!

      Bloody hilarious.

    22. Papadox says:

      @gary Cullen says.

      UDI which I would rather avoid at all costs, becomes the only way to prevent the rancid establishment from suppression and manipulation of the democratic process. Then I agree 100% if that is the only way to bring these thugs to their senses then so let it be. Not what I want but if that’s the only way the great white Queens government will listen, then let it be.

    23. Liz g says:

      Ken @
      They probably went for 55% because it can be portrayed as reasonable.
      On the face of it and to those who think claiming the dead can sounds crazy,this won’t seem such an outrageous requirement.
      It will be spun as the yes side only having to achieve what the no side did last time.
      So all in all 55% is a marketable number.

      While 40% like the 79 referendum could be made to look like it was just being cautious it could trigger memories in some,so a wee bit of a risk.
      The main down side to that is the controversy over it is very searchable on the internet.
      Also the impressive turn out in 2014 may not make it such a safe number.

      It’s worring that this is being floated again,as although those who were politically savvy last time saw it as the con it was,the public didn’t bat an eyelid over it.

      For a big Constutional change 55% is not that unreasonable,but only if there is compulsory voting and a voter role that’s as up to date as possible,a and that’s not going to happen.

      On the up side it’s one more example of a rule being enforced on Scotland,that didn’t apply in England.
      That might but I don’t really know,be illegal according to the Act of the Union,but that Treaty’s been broken so many times.
      The poll Tax being just one example I don’t know if it would help here.

    24. Giesabrek says:

      Why impose a 55% threshold on independence? Why not impose a 55% threshold on staying in the UK? After all, it’s now a straight choice between 2 politically very different unions, with one offering almost no control compared to the other offering almost complete control.

      The UK union is clearly the more toxic and restrictive of the 2 so this should clearly require at least 55% of the country to back it, if only to put to rest the indy question for a “generation”

    25. Donald Marr says:

      Never trust a unionist ,they are not interested in democracy ,only power . They will shift the goal posts . Just watch Britexit stall.

    26. Mike says:

      Articles in the Herald can be ignored. These days they are all about click baiting and less about news or even propaganda.
      They have taken up full time click baiting because of their sales figures.
      Tom Gordon you will find it now 100% employed as their click baiter General.

    27. Jim Morris says:

      Vestas @10.01. The big problem with the postal vote concerns not those signing and sending off even whole families worth, but the total lack of scrutiny over the transport and opening of those votes prior to their delivery to a counting station. In fact every posted vote could be substituted with a desired result if that was necessary.

    28. David Mills says:

      It’s appalling “Jerrymandering” as let not on the ’79 scale I was 10 and knew they were sticking it up 40% of the population on a old electoral register if the result then was a straight majority we would not be talking here now.

      WM will not let go easily or with it old appear good grace!

    29. Proud Cybernat says:

      What happens if NO don’t get 55%?

      Do we have a re-run?

    30. Bob Millar says:

      I’ve been trying to punt the following idea for a while. I think it might persuade some wavering yes supporters and be valuable if there was only a small majority in favour of indy. Following a vote in favour of independence, the SG offers rUK a, say, 5 year ‘shock absorber’ transition period where finances are repatriated. e.g. in the first year Scotland takes 20% of all Scottish taxes but receives 80% Barnet, next year 40%/60% and so on. It would also give time to transfer laws, administration etc. and would seem to be mutually beneficial. Any thoughts?

    31. David Mills says:

      But yes I think we can safely say WM and it minions are more than a tad concerned if there effectively talking up a referendum that hasn’t even been consulted apon yet

    32. Breastplate says:

      Westminster won’t be imposing anything as it is not up to them. If it was up to them there would be no referendum in the first place.

      This is just a marker of how much shit is in their pants and it’s quite funny really 🙂

    33. Robert Peffers says:

      @One_Scot says: 19 October, 2016 at 9:49 am:

      “Given that the Yoons want to raise the majority to 55% for Yes to win, it does not fill me full of confidence that they’re going to play fair in their attempts to win.”

      Don’t know how many of you noticed, “The Donald’s”, claims about the USA presidential campaign. First of all there were claims that computer, “Bots”, inflated the Opinion Poles on the results of the Clinton vs Trump TV debate.

      So, as I’ve always known, ALL opinion polls are utter,”Quorn”, mince, and if they can use bots to fake opinion polls they can do exactly the same for election results – particularly when they allow free open access to postal votes and have no exit polls at the polling stations.

      Which is, of course, how that Davidson harridan could tell the result well before the election was held.

    34. Paul says:

      Can we not just go with the number required when signing the Act of Union three centuries ago?

      I think that needed about 20 or 30 votes.

    35. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Bob Millar says at 10:42 am

      I believe some sort of ‘sunset’/transitional arrangement similar to that which you propose would be a necessity.

      Scots Gov. would have to have full oversight of the tax receipts though and 20%/80% in Y1 sounds overly generous to me.

    36. orri says:

      It’s a desperate tactic to pretend they still have a modicum of control. No longer are they talking about preventing a second referendum. Now it’s more of a negotiating tactic or simply a minimum level of yes that will be accepted by May.

      The UK did not ask the EU for permission to hold a referendum. Holyrood does not need to ask for permission to ask the Scottish electorate for a mandate to negotiate independence.

      However in this case it’s a toss up between them shooting themselves in their own foot or risking further dissent should YES win due to those on the NO side not turning up to vote. The latter is kind of a scorched earth kind of malice if intentional.

    37. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      Bob Millar says at 10:42 am

      Of course those details can be thrashed out following a win in IndyRef2.

    38. Les Wilson says:

      The SG need to knock this down now, do not allow it to take hold.
      Going back to the 40% rule, yes even the dead were counted as no’s. We cannot allow things like this to happen again.

      One other thing, in case this was missed on the last thread, this also needs to be read and the implications for our future Barnet payments realised.

      http://www.thecanary.co/2016/10/18/tories-just-tried-sneak-biggest-ever-privatisation-nhs/

      There is no bigger low, than a Tory low.
      Yet another reason to gtf out of this “Union” and quick.

    39. Liz g says:

      Douge Daniel @ 10.15
      While I couldn’t agree more that if the proposal is worth keeping it should be easy to win a simple majority.
      But I do think there is a place for super majority votes,in Parliament,but,only in Parliament not for referendums.
      Although I think the circumstances of them need to be written down well before the proposals for the actual vote arrived,and the area’s they apply to Very limited.
      The examples I am thinking of are, currently The death penalty, and hypothetically any future Scottish politicians signing an Act of Union with Westminster.

    40. heedtracker says:

      Awesome. Have to say, I had a ref 1 postal vote but took it in to Aberdeen City Council HQ, Broad Street, current owner Wullie Young QC, and ACC ref ballot box looked nothing like the Herald’s photo. A black bin, by the stairs, with a hole you could get your hand in and reach down inside. It wasn’t very funny at all.

      Among other weird yoon stuff, Wullie Young and his merry band of yoons, legally banned First Minister Alex Salmond from any ACC building or premises in 2014 too. Then they banned any Saltire from all ACC property. Why, we were never told. Only in their Scotland region.

    41. sinky says:

      Yoons just being back Labour’s 40% rule as in the 1979 Devolution referendum for a very limited Assembly that keep us under Tory rule for the next 18 years when our oil bounty was squandered.

      This had the effect of counting those who died within six months of the vote as being against an Assembly. How inconsiderate of them to die at that time.

    42. Les Wilson says:

      We need independent monitors in place, reserved to Westminster of course, but would they refuse EU oversight in the present situation?

      Also agree with others, postal votes should be banned, it would remove at least one of their major plays against us.

    43. galamcennalath says:

      If all the people who voted YES in 2014 voted again to leave the Union in IndyRef2, AND, if all the people who voted REMAIN in June voted again to stay in the EU in IndyRef2, then the result would be over 70%.

      OK, not so simply, I know some YES are not remain, and some REMAIN are not yes. However, the statement above is still valid, if improbable. We should look on it as potential. Time and time again we see the hard core BritNat figure of ~30%. The other 70% are open to persuasion.

      If 53% means independence for England via Brexit, then 53% would mean Indy for Scotland too!

    44. Meindevon says:

      I tend to think ‘should Scotland be independent’ was the wrong question. It laid open lots of interpretations of independence form the Unionists.

      If people had been asked if Scotland should be self governing then how could they have said No? What’s not to like? Maybe it doesn’t imply the complete break away that it would mean. Just a thought.

      Also spoke to another person yesterday disgusted with the ‘sanctioning’ of RT news. Not only did he watch it but he watches Al Jezeera too for his news. Said BBC was bad. People down here are slowly but surely wakening up to the BBC bias. (He got a wee black book to read and pass on to relatives in Scotland!)

    45. Marcia says:

      What is good enough for the Brexit people is good enough for the 2nd Ref people.

    46. DerekM says:

      As i have said before we need to make sure the yoon electoral cheats do not get to run the referendum and we do that by making it an EU run referendum.

      The question must be “should Scotland be an independent country inside the European union” yes/no

      Since the UK or England is leaving the EU they will have no right to run or interfere in what is a EU constitutional referendum.

      All you SNP guys need to go talk with the party leaders and make this happen or we will be cheated again.

      We must also let the EU know that we do not trust the UK electoral system to be fair.

    47. Fergus Green says:

      How about postal votes only being permitted if validated by an accompanying letter signed by a health professional? Other circumstances such as being on holiday may be allowed as long as evidence of booking was produced. This is not watertight but would help reduce instances of systematic abuse.

    48. Betty Boop says:

      @ Robert Peffers, 10:44am

      Absolutely agree, Robert. These days doesn’t require removing them anywhere to manipulate votes.

      I’d rather ask a trustworthy friend to proxy vote for me than ever use a postal vote. I reckon only necessary postal votes should be allowed.

      I daren’t start on what I think about the security arrangements for ballot papers when we have local authorities who think that cable ties or unlogged numbered seals are acceptable for securing boxes.

      We are asked to trust…

    49. Grouse Beater says:

      If you can’t win by argument, financial constraints, lies and threats – why, just fix the vote!

    50. yesindyref2 says:

      Yeah, it is vaguely possible I commented on that and the guy’s own article, at some small length.

      But – is there a possibility your average punter reading that would realise that it likely means there’s already a majority for Independence? And perhaps be tempted to join in to be on the winning side?

      Or is my optimistic positivity getting the better of me?

      Oh – a question for the next survey, something like:

      25). (NO voters) If the polls showed there to ba a majority for YES would that make you more likely to vote YES?

    51. The obvious response to this is to demand that the NO vote also achieves 55% or the result is not valid.

      Referendums could be held annually until one side gets 55%. Simples

    52. galamcennalath says:

      With each passing day of this long drawn out constitutional reconfiguration, I become ever more convinced that there is a fundamental difference it the type of people we are compared to Unionists.

      Not particularly the mass of voters who don’t think continually about politics, but I mean the two opposing groups of politically active folks.

      Many things mark differences. Unionist generally ouze entitlement and exceptionalism. This leads to a sense of end justifies the means morally. Truth and facts so often seem irrelevant to them.

      Perhaps most evident is a total lack of self awareness as they fail to apply basic logic. So soon after the Brexit vote, which will be honoured (it appears) with 53%, the suggestion of a threshold of 55% for IndyRef2 is being proposed. Does it not occur to them just how astonishingly outrageous that looks?!

      It amounts to one rule for us, and no need for rules for them. They are the special people, we however are just the little people.

    53. joy macnaughton says:

      Wee blue book and wee black book updated we need a crowdfunder to have them available ASAP

    54. Charles McGregor says:

      Imagine 54.9% for Yes where we assume a similar turnout and postal vote level to 2014, i.e. 3.6 million voters, 0.68 million of which were postal.

      Total Yes votes would be 1.98 million

      Of which, assuming again the reported 70:30 split by postal voters, this would account for 0.48 million No votes and 0.2 million Yes votes.

      Which would mean that non postal voters would have voted 1.78 million out of 2.92 million or 61% for Yes.

      In other words, if the hypothecated postal vote fiddle were true and repeated, you would need to get over 61% Yes from the ballot station vote to clear that 55% hurdle.

      [Aside]
      Even without fiddling a 55% hurdle is potentially inflammatory IMV.

      They got away with it, just, for Montenegro where the hurdle was cleared by a fraction of a percent, if it had failed by the same fraction who knows what may have occurred although I am pretty sure we can all guess.

      The move, to placate Serbia, was adopted by the European Commission.

      The Montenegrin Government accepted the stipulation in order for the referendum to go ahead and be recognised by Serbia, however, the Montenegrin Prime Minister stated that if a majority of >50% but less than 55% were obtained, they would declare independence anyway.

      Not sure Westminster even yet, would take the same line as Serbia. Especially in the light of them being one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo after its UDI from Serbia. That would surely be a hypocrisy too far, even for them.

    55. Hoss Mackintosh says:

      I think they will have to raise the supermajority bar higher than 55% to be sure of stopping independence.

      Have you noticed that the polls have stopped since the Tory and SNP conferences. Strange eh?

      Looking forward to a proper poll without leading questions to see that we are at 50% at least.

      And then we have two years of brexit disaster pushing Scotland further towards Indy.

      It is inevitable and there is nothing the Tories can do to stop it.

    56. scotspine says:

      I would like to see voting rights allocated to Scottish Taxpayers only. That and the exclusion of second home owners from outwith Scotland.

      I agree that postal votes should only be allowed if folk have confirmation of a debilitating ailment.

      There should also be a ban on campaigners visiting care homes.

    57. Joemcg says:

      Hi Charles I was curious about that 680,000 postal votes cast figure. I just did some research and as of August 15th 2014 that was indeed the amount cast. However 790,000 people applied for a postal vote. So what happened to the other 110,000 ballots?

    58. Jamur says:

      Desperation is a stinky cologne.

    59. Vestas says:

      @ Jim Morris 10:34am :

      I hear what you’re saying but IMHO most postal fraud happens prior to the postal vote being sent, whether its dead/fake voters or people filling in forms for people other than themselves.

      There are “issues” about storing those votes & the disclosure of those votes to state actors – how for example did Rooth the Mooth know the state of play in local postal voting before the polls closed?

      The simplest action to take would be to state that postal voting is no longer permissable and will be replaced by proxy voting ONLY for those people physically incapable of voting in person. Its an awful lot harder to commit electoral fraud when you have to nominate a proxy to vote for you as its VERY easy to see individuals acting as multiple proxies.

      It won’t happen while we have the (totally facile) Electoral Commission in charge, that’s for sure!

    60. With each passing day we see the UK turning into a Fascist state.

      Nigel Smith now wants to gerrymander the electoral system in order to stop Scottish Independence happening and have .

    61. liz says:

      This will be them testing the waters and do they mean 55% of those who vote or 55% of the total electorate?

      This needs to be knocked on the head before it gains momentum.

      They’ve probably got consistent polls of 54% Yes.

      We need to bring in the EU or some outside agency to back us, this is undemocratic

    62. galamcennalath says:

      scotspine says:

      postal votes should only be allowed if folk have confirmation of a debilitating ailment.

      It’s not so simple. I believe most politicians have a postal vote because votes are on Thursdays and generally they will likely be away at one of the two parliaments on polling day (if the vote does not entail them).

      Many able working people need postal votes because they can’t be at home.

      I would agree with you if limited polling stations were opened in every constituency for a few weeks, 7days a week, prior to the count day. That would give all able bodied an opportunity to vote in person.

    63. Dr Jim says:

      Notice from HM Guv

      Democracy is what we say it is, and yes! all dead people will be counted as NO voters

      It’s what they would have wanted

      and anyone who votes YES will have their teeth checked to make sure of their stated ethnicity and if found to be of mixed race will be subject to the deportation act for all Je Yi Isr.. erm?.. foreign scu… people

      Please tell us about our service and how we can improve it in the future thank you…… HM Guv.com

    64. G says:

      http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

      “2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

      If they think there’s division now, try rejecting a majority vote for independence because it doesn’t meet some arbitrary threshold. I really can’t see it happening.

      I agree that postal votes are a problem, though it’s a difficult case to argue without sounding paranoid. Look at the reaction to Trump’s complaints in a country that has insecure electronic voting. Of course, the reason that he’s being criticised (for undermining faith in the electoral system) is exactly the same reason it should be addressed in the first place, so it really shouldn’t get to the stage where politicians are having to draw attention to it.

    65. Charles McGregor says:

      Sorry to keep banging on about this, but what we really need is a database of votes cast where members of the electorate can go and check what is recorded for their vote any time they like after voting.

      Secure access, of course, bio-metrics etc. for both the voting procedure and for checking your vote, a secure direct line so interception/interference is not possible.

      It isn’t 100% foolproof, nothing is.

      Voters could still be coerced into voting the way the coercer wants them to.

      Fiddling could still be carried out at the database end however such fiddling would require institutional compliance with very little opportunity for plausible deniability by the Establishment.

    66. Brexit is doing wonders for house prices here in London 😉

    67. Swiss Perspective says:

      Well the argument falls flat right from the word go. Radical changes are a foot already with Brexit and all. So if anything, independence could be regarded as less radical. In other words, on the terms proposed, independence should be granted on a 45% Yes.

    68. Luigi says:

      As has already been implied, the BREXT vote was quite a bit below 55%. Sauce for the goose…Furthermore, what about Scotland’s super majority of 62% that wants to remain in Europe?

      I just love it when those crazy yoons do all our hard work for us. Talk about a death spiral. 🙂

    69. Breeks says:

      OT again…

      Seen reports that refugee children are having their teeth inspected to determine whether they are really children.

      For some reason I have a picture in my head of a line of children waiting to be judged. The lucky ones go to the right, the unlucky ones go to the left. You don’t need me to point out the uncomfortable parallels of the Nazis selecting Jews, but while you’re there, just imagine the US and Canadians doing this to British Children who were evacuees from the Blitz in WW2.

      Back on topic…

      With rampant propaganda, innumerable outright lies, rigged debates, rigged discussion panels, rigged postal ballots, external campaigners bussed in to interfere with due process, external agencies bussed in to count ballots, Ruth Davison ostensibly knowing the results of postal ballots before they were counted, an unprecedented turnout for the return of postal ballots, the flagrant disregard of Purdah rules on the eve of the YES referendum, various irregularities in campaign funding, and what might gingerly be called token monitoring delivered by the wholly partisan Electoral Commission, they now want to introduce a 55% rule?

      At what point do say enough is enough and demand the UN is brought in to monitor and observe this affront to democracy? Please tell me we are not going to abdicate responsibility for Indyref2 in the same way we did in 2014?

      As if that wasn’t a big enough ask, we expect to announce, kick start and mobilise another Yes campaign group, run a campaign for, and hold a referendum, and potentially negotiate the repeal of the Act of Union and establish or formal independent status, and take our place on the world stage as a fully affiliated member of the EU inside a two year window, which could potentially be much shorter than two years?

      Man alive. When this starts moving, our feet aren’t going to touch the ground. I just cannot shake my misgiving that we are training for the steeplechase but we are actually entered for the sprint.

    70. Vestas says:

      @ galamcennalath 11:53am :

      “Many able working people need postal votes because they can’t be at home.”

      No they don’t. They can nominate a proxy to vote for them and thats legal now.

      The number of people who don’t have a partner/family member/friend capable of getting to the polling station and being a proxy is tiny.

      People don’t do that now because its more hassle than postal voting, simple as that.

    71. Stoker says:

      They’re shitting the proverbial brick and the only reason they get away with printing such tripe is because there are those among us who keep those rags alive via purchases and online participation.

    72. MJS Dundee says:

      This came up in respect of the 2014 ref and also the Brexit one.

      Was a UK parlimentary report 2011 on refs which went to the Lords who came back with recommendations. Both Commons and Lords said they thought min voter turnout and supermajority type arrangements were a very bad idea and that a simple majority should suffice. In part due to the bad feeling the 40% rule caused during the ’79 ref..

      That was the basis on which both 2014 and 2016 referendums were held requiring a simple majority. With such precedent, there is zero chance of IndyRef2 requiring min voter turnout or any sort of supermajority.

      The Rev’s point isn’t that this will happen, it won’t, more a signal of the expectation among the Unionists that they’re going to lose. And are already scraping the barrel trying to dream up unfair means of preventing their impending demise.

      As some are fond of saying, tick tock … .

    73. Derick fae Yell says:

      Scotspine 11:39

      It is already an offence for a holiday home owner to register for a vote if they already have a vote at their main address. It’s supplying ‘false information’.

      What needs to happen is that Electoral Registration officers need to check this, and if necessary for prosecutions to follow. Or for the fact that this is an offence to be publicised.

      “Offences Created Under The Electoral Administration Act 2006

      The purpose of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (“EAA”) is to improve the security around how people vote. The concern is that registration may not simply be used as a prelude for electoral fraud but one of the means whereby a new identity is created for the purpose of banking fraud.

      The EAA creates two new offences which came into force on 11 September 2006.

      These are:

      Supplying false information: section15

      Section 15 EAA inserts section 13D to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“RPA”) and creates an offence of supplying false information to the Electoral Registration Officer, in connection with the registration of electors. The elements of the offence are: the provision of any false information to an Electoral Registration Officer for any purpose in connection with the registration of electors. This offence is summary only and carries a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment.
      Fraudulent application for a postal vote: section 40

      Section 40 EAA inserts section 62A, this makes it a specific offence to make a fraudulent application for a postal or proxy vote.

      The elements of the offence are:
      the engagement by a person in an act at a parliamentary or local election;
      with the intention of depriving another of an opportunity to vote or making for himself or another a gain of a vote to which he or the other is not otherwise entitled.

      An example of an act, specified in subsection 2 of section 62A, is applying for a postal or proxy vote. This offence is triable either way and carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment.”

      http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/election_offences/#a04

    74. Ronnie says:

      The Scottish Government needs to boot this in the bin NOW. Anyway, surely with an imposed 55% hurdle then any result between 50.1% and 54.9% risks tipping us into UDI territory… I know I’d be fucking raging if over half the electorate voted Yes only to have a big firm No imposed on them.

    75. Liz g says:

      Liz @ 11.51
      They mean 55% of the people on the electoral register.

      Since yes would be the side that had to reach the 55%
      That would mean that anyone on the electoral register who didn’t vote would be helping the no vote.
      And that includes people who have died but haven’t yet been taken of the voter’s roll

    76. Clootie says:

      55percent is used to give the illusion of being reasonable. It is designed to mislead the general public who do not understand the implications of such tactics.

      However the good news is that such devices and tactics indicate the level of panic in the unionist camp.

    77. Rob James says:

      Westminster seems to have forgotten that this is a voluntary union. The decision to stay or leave is entirely our own. Therefore, it is in our own interest to set the regulations for and the control of any referenda which we propose. We do not require Westminster’s permission. They cannot force us to remain against the will of the majority.

      I am sure the EU will clarify the situation should Westminster wish to challenge it.

    78. Betty Boop says:

      @ Vestas, 11:49am

      I think an individual is only allowed to cast two proxy votes.

      A vote should only ever be given to a proxy who can be trusted by the voter.

    79. DerekM says:

      You need to ask the question are the unionists parties capable of lying?

      Are the unionist parties capable of electoral fraud ?

      If you answer yes to both these questions then you already know they will.

      You can bet your last devalued pound that a tory think tank has been working on this since 2014 knowing damn fine they would not be able to make it look like 55% for no in a second referendum.

    80. Clootie says:

      Ronnie @ 12:19pm

      An Independence vote could be won by a 10 percent margin. However if it was a turnout of 70percent which is good we would have only achieved 40percent of the electorate…some 15percent below the threshold.

      That you consider 50.1 the point of anger it could be much, much lower.
      With a 70percent turnout we would need to win the vote with nearly 80 percent to achieve the target.

      This is the trap.

    81. I have met unionists who not only claim the no vote in 2014 was higher then 55 percent and the yes vote was only 37 percent.

      They also argue that those who didn’t vote in the 2014 Indy referendum, as being supporters of the union.

    82. GrahamB says:

      There has been clamour for the question this time to be along the lines of “Do you want Scotland to remain in the UK?” So that the union holds the positive high ground.
      I’m quite happy for a supermajority to apply to that version of the question!

    83. Dan Huil says:

      Aye, they’re definitely feart. The more feart they are the more desperate they will become, and probably the more devious and depraved.

    84. Vestas says:

      @ Betty Boop 12:42pm :

      Two seems a reasonable number to me – for example a couple of OAPs can’t make it so someone votes for them.

      You can cast unlimited proxy votes for members of your immediate family. Thats somewhat unfortunate in the Muslim scenario where women are having their votes taken away by the men, but at least there is visibility of who is voting as a multiple proxy.

      BTW there are exemptions available for multiple proxy voting – for example nursing/care homes can have a nominated member of staff cast votes for all residents.

      Proxy voting isn’t a panacea – theres loads of ways to game the system, but ONLY on polling day. No advance voting, no holiday home owners, no state actors having a quick shufti in the postal votes boxes…..

      Oh and you apply for a proxy vote up until 5pm on polling day (doubt you’d get it sorted that late) unlike postal voting where it has to be received by 5pm 11 WORKING days before.

      No excuses really for not banning postal votes except in the most exceptional of cases. The Electoral Commission will never countenace it of course….

    85. Training Day says:

      @DerekM

      The answer to both of your questions is indeed a resounding yes.

      One of the (numerous) things which still disturb me greatly about the conduct of the 2014 referendum was the ITN reporter who appeared on the news programme at 10.01 pm on 18th September to announce ‘there is great relief in Downing Street tonight’ – before a single vote cast on the day itself had been counted.

    86. Ronnie says:

      @GrahamB 12:51 – The problem with that question is that we all instantly flip from being rabid Yessers to campaigning for “No thanks”!

    87. call me dave says:

      ‘Super majority’ 55% minimum.

      I’m like a few others in believing they’re flying a kite to see what way the wind blows.

      What they would like to do and what they will do are two different things.
      Don’t think they would / could take such a gamble.

      PS:
      Well we knew it was coming. The Hootsman’s take on it.

      Scotland’s MPs cut from 59 to 53 in constituency review

      https://archive.is/otUDh

    88. Mac says:

      1 word “democracy”…it is pathetic that this is even being discussed however it shows without question the SNP tactics of opening 2 fronts for the UK government to contend forcing them to choose the English vote of BREXIT or the union and REMAIN is the correct course to follow.

      As the more right wing and desperate the unionists become the harder to square the circle and resolve the obvious issues the people of Scotland have with BREXIT and the apparent right wing agenda.

      Independence is a question of when not if!!!

    89. One_Scot says:

      The bottom line is this, if the postal voting system is not restricted to medical conditions/holidays and made more secure, then we will be French Connection United Kingdomed.

    90. Clootie says:

      I just thought of another example – If we had a 55 percent voter turnout at the referendum the ONE individual could prevent Independence under this rule 🙁

      I know the turnout would be higher but it highlights the twisted maths that becomes stronger as the turnout falls.

    91. HandandShrimp says:

      See the fear? You can smell it!

    92. Dr Jim says:

      Some folk don’t vote because they don’t care
      Some folk don’t like the question so don’t vote
      Some folk don’t like answering questions so don’t vote
      Some folk think it’s all rigged and they don’t count anyway
      Some folk will never vote because they’re hiding

      All these folk importantly are unimportant to the vote except when the UK wants to use them as invented opinion to match their agenda, and some way must be found to impress upon these groups that abstaining on a vote, to the UK is as good as voting for whatever the UK decides that means

      Meaning, you’re giving away your right to Theresa May and co, to tell you what you think
      And there’s not a damn thing you can do about it because you chose not to have your right to say

      Abstaining is for Mugs (see Labour party)

    93. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Let me repeat if it’s 55% for us then it’s 55% for them and anything less automatically triggers another referendum

    94. Maria F says:

      And this ladies and gentlemen is nothing more than another confirmation that the Scottish people are seen as an inferior class by unionist careerist politicians and indeed many down south.

      Brexit will lead the UK to oblivion and by the look of it, a good part of the vote was fueled by flirting with xenophobia. And yet, the vote for Brexit is not being contested in the way indiref is or demanded to be a ‘super majority’. Not even considering that the UK is formed by 4 countries of which only 2 voted to leave the EU.

      Well that is of course okay because England voted to leave. English know what they are voting for. Scots can be easily mislead. Please Mr Smith don’t insult our intelligence.

      This looks like there is a rule for the Scots and a rule for all the rest: another example of the democratic farce Scotland is subjected within this union. The sad thing is that this self-serving hypocrites cannot be even bothered in hiding it anymore.

      Furthermore, according to that article Mr Smith said:

      “Given the rest of the UK would not have a say on Scottish independence, he said Theresa May would be right to insist upon proof of consensus through a higher threshold for Yes”

      Now my question to Mr Smith would have to be: and why should the rest of the UK have any say whatsoever in what are exclusively Scottish Matters?

      Didn’t Mr Cameron impose EVEL so Scotland did not have a say in English matters?

      So what sort of discrimination is this? Isn’t the UK a ‘union of equals’? So why does Mr Smith insist in treating Scotland as an English colony?

      Also, I would like to ask Mr Smith:
      Scotland has been portrayed by unionist parties over and over again as a basket case. Why does Mr Smith and other unionists insist then upon on lumbering the English people with the burden of Scotland’s deficit? Or is it that things are not exactly as they were told?

      Also, I am sure that Mr Smith has still enough functioning neurons to realise that it is a completely unbalanced affair putting an 85% of the population against an 8%. Doesn’t Mr Smith believe in honest democracy and fairness?

      Besides, if he is that convinced that not enough people in Scotland has an appetite for independence, what on earth do the unionist have to fear? Or have we been telling porkies again?

      I honestly cannot believe that this people can betray their democratic principles, and indiscriminately act in such a brass way.

      Crumbs, I am furious.

    95. Cadogan Enright says:

      The UK government has already signed the British / Irish Peace agreement of 1998 saying that 50%+1 is enough for Northern Ireland can leave.

      Brenda and I had young CadÓg to celebrate

      Hopefully he will be the one

    96. dakk says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      19 October, 2016 at 1:24 pm
      Let me repeat if it’s 55% for us then it’s 55% for them and anything less automatically triggers another referendum

      Obviously our Yoon custodians of democracy will have as a condition that the status quo be retained if the 55% threshold is not achieved,with no provision for further referendums.

    97. Fireproofjim says:

      Re the age of child refugees.
      A bit of a conundrum there.
      I recall going to Tynecastle many years ago to see Scotland under 15 football team in the final of their World Cup.
      They were playing against Saudi Arabia, and all the Saudi under 15s were big adults with moustaches and beards. Compared with the Scots who were children. The Saudis won and when the Scots protested to FIFA the Saudis refused any checks,.

    98. Arbroath1320 says:

      Apologies if this has already been mentioned … and for being O/T. 😉

      There is a piece in today’s National about the Brain family. We all remember the Brain family right? 😉

      Well would you believe me if I told you all that they have now received, via e-mail a request from the Home Office to complete a customer satisfaction survey! 😀

      What alternate universe has the Home Office just beamed in from? 😉

      Thankfully I am not the Brain family because if I were I’d be telling the Home Office, in no uncertain terms, what they can do with their customer satisfaction survey and then once they have done that where they can stick their survey for future reference! 😀

      http://www.thenational.scot/politics/brain-family-gob-smacked-by-invitation-to-complete-satisfaction-survey-for-visa-service.23738

    99. BJ says:

      This from an article in the Guardian yesterday:-

      “”Not only does Northern Ireland stand to lose about £500m a year in EU funding for farmers, voluntary groups and peace projects, its exports – 60% of which go to Europe – could suffer if tariffs are imposed on products imported from the UK.

      The government has promised to match the current level of agricultural funding through to 2020, but what will happen after that is unclear.””

      Arlene Foster supported the leave campaign. Surely she isn’t stupid enough to believe that Westminster will keep their promise of matching funding after Brexit!

      There’s also the £9bn transferred to Belfast from London every year. C’mon Arlene, once they are running out of cash for their vanity projects and the Royal family do you think Westminster will give a toss for NI?

    100. JLT says:

      Not this time. This was a little trick they could only pull once, and they’ve used it.

      We live in a different era, wirh a very politicised nation, and who are in no mood after Better Together’s antics from 2 years ago.

      They can ask, hint …even beg, but after being hauled out of Europe on a 52% win margin, they’ll be laughed out of the room on this one. No chance!

    101. Alasdair Smith says:

      My Grandmother voted no to devolution in 1979 – and she died in 1977.

    102. harry mcaye says:

      fireproofjim – It was the Under 16 World Cup. I was there too. Just google imaged this. Blimey! I’d forgotten how obvious it was. I would confidently state every one of them is over 22. One guy in particular on the front row has definitely had a difficult paper round.

      https://twitter.com/iainduff/status/458719464805371904

    103. Vestas says:

      @ Arbroath1320 :

      The Home Office have copied their buddies in G4S on that one I’m afraid. G4S put survey forms on the (airline) seats of every person they deport.

      Its beggars belief doesn’t it? 🙁

    104. the dog philosopher says:

      Shouldn’t we be flattered that they want to hold on so desperately to our little basketcase of a country? Perhaps the good people of England could have their say: ‘Good people of England, do you wish to keep subsidising those good-for-nothing Jocks out of your own hard-earned dosh?.

      Feel the love!

    105. heedtracker says:

      55% superdooper majority is probably not nearly enough for the yoons of twitter. They do enjoy the violent language do end of era SLabour. To be expected really.

      Scott Arthur ?@DrScottThinks 1h1 hour ago
      America slaps down Sturgeon and tells her to RESPECT the will of the British people. express.co.uk.

    106. gerry parker says:

      We should only accept the super majority of 55% in the Scottish independence referendum if 55% of Westminster Scottish MP’s Agree to it.

    107. Walter Scott says:

      Has anyone read Siobhan in today’s Express? haha. It’s brilliant

    108. heedtracker says:

      the dog philosopher says:
      19 October, 2016 at 1:57 pm
      Shouldn’t we be flattered that they want to hold on so desperately to our little basketcase of a country?

      Last BBC Question Time show I saw was from Hendon north London and the audience were cheering their heads off at their UK becoming independent and sovereign again Brexit wise.

      Special guest (SNPusual never on QT)Alex Salmond raised Scottish independence and the audience went silent. Mute!

      It wasn’t as funny as when Dimbelby and QT came to Dundee, where there’s only posh tory yoon roasters in Dundee and in the Dundee Question time audience but it was close.

    109. Proud Cybernat says:

      George Reid, SNP MP, writing after the 1979 failed Devolution Bill:

      Reid wrote: “Put simply the process of elections, which has been accepted in the past has changed to try and prevent Scotland from having an Assembly. In all referenda the largest share of the votes cast has been the only criteria for determining the winner. Not so this time.The point is still not understood in Scotland. For the Yes campaign to be successful 40 per cent of the total electorate must vote that way.

      “Everyone who is dead but on the current roll [like my father] is therefore an automatic No. People who can’t be bothered to go to the polling stations are counted as a No (and usually 25 per cent of the electorate don’t bother turning out in a General Election). So are people on holiday or away on business.”

      Over my dead body will I ever allow such an anti-democratic proposal for IndyRef2 to ever see the light of day.

    110. Paula Rose says:

      Proposals for a ‘super majority’ are only valid if the choice is change or the status quo – that will not be the case in any new referendum, both choices will lead to change and areas of uncertainty due to the change in circumstances that will have brought it about.

    111. Joannie says:

      What a cheek! I bet they’ll try and change the rules so EU citizens can’t vote this time too, given that they know their vote is likely to go the other way this time.

      Cheeky sods.

    112. Ian says:

      Re postal votes, in the US and maybe other places too, people can vote in advance(3 weeks – 1 week before the official voting day), allowing those that won’t be able to vote on the official voting day, or who simply prefer to avoid queue’s, to vote in advance. But they have to do this at an official office where the normal id checks are made. This could help address many of the UK postal vote weaknesses.

      But the overseas postal votes still seem wide open to fraud.

    113. Arbroath1320 says:

      Vestas says:
      19 October, 2016 at 1:55 pm

      @ Arbroath1320 :

      The Home Office have copied their buddies in G4S on that one I’m afraid. G4S put survey forms on the (airline) seats of every person they deport.

      Its beggars belief doesn’t it? ?

      I want to say that this beggars belief Vestas… no seriously I REALLY wanted to say that this beggars belief but I just can’t, mainly because I can’t stop rolling about on the floor laughing at this. ?

    114. Orri says:

      https://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/registering-to-vote#

      Implies you can register in two places at the same time. The bit about students and the subsequent final decision being up to the local electoral officer hint that the 50% of residence is a guideline. The crime is only in voting more than once or fraudulently claiming to live at an address you don’t.

      The problem in the strict interpretation of the law given is it only deals with elections and not referenda.

      The problem with postal voting is the natural assumption that it will reflect the exit polls. Which it might if there were no last minute swings. Darling’s attempt to close down discussion as soon as postal voting opened might partly be because there was going to be a notable discrepancy if the vote continued to swing towards yes.

      As to Davidson, her comment was incredibly ill thought out but in the end we’d hope that next time those on the Yes side would also have a sneaky peek. How else would you guard against fraud? It wouldn’t surprise me that they went one step further and used each count as a check on how their campaign was going.

      So postal voting, most people have a gut instinct it shouldn’t be needed. Publishing a breakdown might lead to cries of fix in even the cleanest of elections. In a volatile campaign to many postal votes would also preclude exit polls for the same reason. The same might be said for proxy voting.

    115. heedtracker says:

      This is probably enough yoon roasters for one day in Kevin Rippey’s Scotland region of toryness. All this Cohen thing that Kevrage admires so much, is a bizarre slander on everyone in Scotland that votes YES. Worth a read though, just to get an idea of just how awful UKOK hackdom is these days.

      I blame Thatcher:D

      She gave the UK press to Murdoch and a couple of other far right creeps and 40 years later, everything BBC is a rolling party political broadcast on behalf of UKIP, rancid The Graun is the Times, The Times is bog roll, and SLabour activists in Scotland like Dr NO!, consider the pervs and reprobates at the Express and the Heil allies.

      Strange days.

      Kevin Hague ?@kevverage 17h
      This by @NickCohen4 falls firmly in the “must read” category – the reality of SNP’s relationship with “MSM”

    116. DerekM says:

      @ BJ

      What folks need to understand BJ is that the EU subsidies will continue until A50 is completed they do not end the day it is signed so these claims of “matching” until 2020 by westminster are disingenuous if not down right lies.

      Of course the subsidies will continue but it will not be westminster treasury that is paying them even if they would like people to think they are.

      Just another con by a bunch of crooked gits they will probably try to reduce them hoping that people are stupid enough to believe they are paying them to help out when it will be EU money they will be paying with.

      After A50 is completed and the UK no longer pays the EU membership is when the EU cash will stop.

    117. Vestas says:

      Being of an age where I have kids going through English unis (yes at that cost, unreal) I can tell you that the induction most students get tells them to register at uni/college.

      There are no “ifs, buts or maybes” – advice is register at uni/college who pass on the forms to the council.

      With the exception of the odd referendum or so 😉 nobody in the UK holds elections in the uni summer hols. Says something about “British” society there mmm?

      tl;dr students know what they can/can’t do re voting.

    118. call me dave says:

      Jeremy Corbyn adviser urged Scottish Labour to ditch Kezia Dugdale and back second independence referendum

      ‘Reckless talk’ says Rowley.

      https://archive.is/yMLL7

      PS: In other news.

      Theresa May have made a double entendre… Aye right!

    119. Les Wilson says:

      youtu.be/Y3cOaawUptc

      Chunky Mark on the Tories! enjoy

    120. Kat hamilton says:

      Am fearful of security and fraud potential at Indy 2. Wish the Swiss or EU could monitor the whole voting procedure at Indy 2. Anxious of perfidious Albions abuse of power and corruption potential..Margo MacDonald asked that the secret services would not be involved whatsoever, did we ever get a satisfactory answer to that…..they will stoop to any level to maintain their grasp on us…how did NZ manage to slink away without the constant justification that Scotland has to endure on a daily basis when all we want is self governance..

    121. Les Wilson says:

      I think I am not mistaken when I recall during Indy1 postal votes were all sent down south for some reason, manchester I think it was but maybe wrong.

      After whatever, they were returned. It is known that Westminster has machines that can copy your signature to a T, not hard to have copies of the actual forms with details on.
      So just why were they sent south just to be sent back again a wee bit later?

    122. Thepnr says:

      The’re most likely feart with good reason. I’m certain that the Tories private polling is consistently showing support for Yes in Scotland above 50%.

      That’s why they want to shift the goalposts. Unacceptable and we must make that clear.

    123. Meg merrilees says:

      Just listened to a snippet from PMQ’s today -Angus robertson enquiring about the possible use of Scottish made missiles being used by Saudi’s to kill civilians in Yemen.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37706840
      Have a listen – 25 seconds in, do I hear the PM congratulating him on becoming he depute leader of the Scottish NATIONALIST Party?

      No such party exists!

      Does she know the difference or are we all divisive nationalists!

    124. Marga says:

      Some update on Catalonia – OT, but hope you don’t kill me with hammers!

      In the context of Sturgeon’s move with foreign delegation in Berlin, news of increasingly successful activities by Diplocat, very active Catalan diplomatic service.

      Last week, those attending conference in Madrid by new Catalan president Puigdemont included these ambassadors:

      France, UK, Egypt, Ireland, Algeria, Venezuela, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden and other lower ranks from other countries.

      This week, those attending conference in Madrid by prestigious Catalan ex-president, Mas, included these:

      Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Hungary, Belgium, The Czech Republic, finland, Ukraine, Ghana, Algeria, Honduras, Andorra, Australia and Egypt.

      Spanish government actively discourages foreign diplomats from attending Catalan events in Spain/abroad. But with foreign exposure it seems the Catalan independence movement is attracting great interest.

      Also some videos of interviews on French tele by the current Catalan president, a career journalist (and it shows) explaining the independence roadmap. Tough interviews, hopefully accessible to some readers here:

      http://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/limpacte-de-puigdemont-en-la-seva-visita-a-paris-entrevistes-a-france-24-france-3-i-la-tribune/

      Then a note – the Belgian region of Wallonia, which interestingly has powers over foreign policy, has succeeded in blocking the EU agreement for free commerce with Canada. Scotland should have a voice too.

      Finally, a selection of other stories in English:

      http://english.vilaweb.cat/

    125. Stu Mac says:

      @Robert Peffers

      taking Trump’s claims as a source is to say the least very dubious. Even if there were no safeguards not all polls are done online so they can’t be affected.

      Of course one should be careful not to take any such info as “gospel” – check what questions were asked, what form they were asked in, how they compare with other polls etc. before drawing any conclusions, and any conclusions should be provisional.

      However. Going with Trump’s type of accusations only give the anti-independence forces a stick to beat you with (the one with tin foli hat engraved on it).

    126. yesindyref2 says:

      @Les Wilson
      Totally mistaken – my postal vote went to North Ayrshire Council via Royal Mail, collected from the post box by Royal Mail (I actually watched with pride), taken by Royal Mail van to a sorting office in Glasgow, which is 100% covered by CCTV in case of theft.

    127. Petra says:

      Theresa May’s Government (with the help of the US) will stop at NOTHING to prevent us from getting our Independence but I doubt they’ll use the 55% target. Next one up. We’ll probably be bombarded with ‘the whole of the UK should be involved in the vote’ argument, as per people like Forsyth.

      There’s loads of data online that highlights the hellish level of fraudulence relating to postal voting. Can the Scottish Government do anything about that? The ‘second home’ issue is another. Someone should try to ascertain how many there are because I doubt the online figure is correct. FAR from it.

      At the end of the day they have the capacity to rig the vote by SIMPLY (at the touch of a button) using computer software and the only way to counteract that, seemingly, is through having EXIT polls.

      We should also ensure that we involve the UN to oversee.

      Closer scrutiny of the Electoral Commission wouldn’t go amiss either, imo.

    128. Petra says:

      @ Les ‘Votes going south.’

      I was informed by a number of people, including Royal Mail employees, that that was the case.

      @ yesindyref2 ….. Do you know where your vote went to after reaching Glasgow? Between Glasgow and North Ayrshire Council?

    129. Les Wilson says:

      yesindyref2 says:

      Nope I was right, havea read at this blog which goes into real depth of the Indy vote. If you read it all that is good, but if not near the bottom you will find this-

      “Even more disturbing are claims that postal ballots were first being sent to England to be ‘scanned’ and ‘have their signature checked’ before being returned to the relevant electoral district in Scotland:”

      This WAS done.
      Here is the blogg

      http://joequinn.net/2014/09/28/scottish-referendum-rigged-mi5s-phony-postal-votes-and-ballot-boxes/

      I will find other references for you. They would have been removed after you sometime after you saw them delivered.

    130. The. Only way you will ever won ref,.2 3 4 5etc., is to ban postal voting and all Incomers having a vote only the native people of Scotland should be able to decide the future of their country only those who were born and live in Scotland have that right anything else is open to fraud and the unionists will use if it is there to use as I am sure they did the last time .,I mean I have heard of Incomers who voted yes the last ref.,but the figuers say70to80 per cent voted no to me that is not on

    131. Les Wilson says:

      yesindyref2 says:

      There is other evidence here of rigging and againlower down a ref to the postal votes being sent to England first, they were returned I seem to remember a week or so prior to the referendum.
      There was astonishment from Yes folk at the time.

      http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/vote-fraud-in-scottish-referendum.html

      Do not be surprised if you cannot find many references to it, most seem to have ” disappeared”.

      It truly did happen.

    132. Petra says:

      I also know for a FACT that ALL postal votes in Renfrewshire were opened from the 10th of September on. Was this the norm right across Scotland?

      As to postal votes we should get the word RIGHT out there …. that is don’t use it and if you’ve got an elderly / infirm relative, friend or neighbor offer to take them to the polling station ….. and check to see if there’s Exit Polls.

    133. Auld Rock says:

      I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, don’t the Yoons learn anything from history especially from mid the 20th century onwards where many countries of the old empire wanted Independence. Where this was ignored or treated as silly children and told to go away as they didn’t have the skills to rule themselves. The result was for Patriots to start physically fighting for their Independence, India, Burma, Malaya, Cypress, Kenya, Rhodesia ET AL and never forget Ireland. They all achieved Independence in the end and it could all have been done without spilling any blood, but the English Establishment new better. Aye they knew so much better that most of them were burned out of Ireland.

      It is also interesting to note how quickly Westminster granted ‘Dominion Status’ (a kind of home rule)to Canada, Australia and New Zealand for they were scared stiff that these countries would follow the American example.

      Auld Rock

    134. yesindyref2 says:

      @Les Wilson
      Those are “conspiracy blogs” with no actual facts or data, and Naomi Wolf would write anything for a dollar. She wrote a book about it. I got my information as to the procedure from the Electoral Commission website, and the Scottish Government who actually legislated for, organised, ran and were responsible for the vote. They did not protest because it was a fair ballot.

      The votes were counted in 32 separate authorities including mine, which was SNP controlled at the time. My post office is YES, the postie is non-political, and Glasgow where the sorting office is, is YES.

      Sorry Les, this nutter stuff has been debunked a million times before – and by Independence supporters, not Unionists. The black helicopteres did not arrive at hundreds, thousands of voting stations wihtout being noticed and exceed the speed of sound to whizz them down to London and back in around an hour and a half flat.

      Was there fraud on a limited scale? Yes, of course there was. Probably about 2,000 votes worth. Were people registered under the age of 10? Yes.

      NO Won by over 400,000 votes. This going on about electoral fraud just makes us look like sore losing fruitcakes. Sorry to be blunt.

    135. yesindyref2 says:

      @Petra
      Jings there was a thead way back, and a post from Doug Daniel explaining the whole thing. Whwnever postal votes were opened there were observers- from Wings as well. And then when processed they all went back in the safe. Not on supersonic totally invisible fast jets off to a dark and dank cellar in London somewhere.

    136. Ian Foulds says:

      Why not just stick to what the ‘b,seed’ Margaret is alleged to have said?

      Paraphrased, I believe as, – If the Scottish Nationalist MPs are in the majority then Scotland can be Independent.

    137. yesindyref2 says:

      Oh Jesus Christ here we are within spitting distance of Independence and people are banking on about fraud, postal votes being opened and subsititued (it doesn’t happen), votes spirited off to London (why not fucking Leuchars it’s nearer?) and ever postie in Scotland in one huge humungous conspiracy against something proabbly most of them voted YES for.

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/

    138. ben madigan says:

      The 55% cut-off is nonsense and can easily be challenged in court.

      The important thing with indyref2 is to get the vote out.

      I suggest Independent observers (UN and/or EU) in all hospices/nursing homes etc who will transport votes to nearest polling station;
      Independent observers (UN and/or EU) in all polling stations;
      Votes to be counted and registered directly as soon as polling closes in all polling stations and tallies confirmed in the counting station;
      postal votes to be limited as far as possible,sent to the local polling station and counted there;
      same with proxies;

    139. G4jeepers says:

      O/T

      Joanna Cherry got a lot of support in the commons today.

      http://archive.is/nnsl0

    140. Petra says:

      The man on the scene? At one scene only and not privy to what could have gone on beforehand, indyref2.

      London? Every postie in Scotland? Who said that?

      And, eh, there were no observers from Wings when the postal votes were opened in Renfrewshire. 30,000 of them.

    141. Ian Foulds says:

      Apologies to all. My post at 7.54pm should have read …. ‘blessed’ Margaret

    142. Willie says:

      Time we took Amber Rudd’s advice and made lists. We need to identify those who are against us, who are not part of us, who resist our democtatic wishes. And then when we know who they are we can name them and shame them. Standing idly by is not an option.

    143. Thepnr says:

      yesindyref2

      Here y’are

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/

      Yep, I and many others representing Wings were also at the postal counts. If anything was skewed or dodgy it wasn’t at the counts.

      Why did the Tory Cameron lose the EU referendum? Because he lost, simple as that.

    144. Breeks says:

      Regarding child refugees, it strikes me that even if there are some young adults there, it is these young adults who are most vulnerable to having an AK47 put n their hand and marched off to the front to kill somebody.
      These people have had their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and what they need is a little compassion and safety, not to be treated like cattle or sent back into the meat grinder.

    145. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      ben madigan @ 20:25,

      Your comments re counting postal votes at the polling stations are well-intended but impractical, alas. Distributing counting over the polling stations themselves would require a massive and unaffordable increase in numbers involved and be even harder to monitor than centralised as at present.

      As to postal votes, you are perhaps not very familiar with the entire procedure. (I wasn’t either until I actually saw it being done at the last UKGE.) Counting the ballots themselves isn’t the difficulty, it’s the validation, which is quite extensive.

      The first stage is to scan the signature on the accompanying papers, whereupon a computer compares that with the pre-registered signature. This step must be automated because of the sheer number of postal votes that are received these days. Otherwise it just wouldn’t be feasible. Only where significant variations exist (which could be something as obvious as a middle initial exchanged for a full middle name) are handled by real people, ending up if need be with a senior official who has the final say to accept or reject.

      This verification complexity and the sheer volume of postal votes requires that they are verified centrally in the days leading up to the count as well as on the day of the count itself (due to the variation in arrivals of the votes).

      As the ballot papers are openly collected for counting, any accredited observer present can get an occasional glimpse of some votes, and via this inadvertent sampling process (which actually happens at every count), all parties involved can get a rough idea of how the votes are stacking up. (This is the legitimate source of Ruth Davidson’s indy comments, although any such comment made before polling closes is a direct contravention of electoral law.)

      But I do agree with you about the number of postal votes. It was done in a (misguided, I believe) effort to increase participation. Seems to me that if you’re available and able, you should get yourself down to the polling station and do it in person. Then there’s no doubt whatever as to who is actually making the vote. Jeepers, it’s no big deal for the vast majority of us, and the rightful exceptions are manageable.

      I also agree with you about collecting votes from nursing homes, etc. That seems to me to be a genuine weakness in the whole deal. No representative of any party in an election or referendum should be allowed anywhere near the elderly when making their vote, just as in any normal polling booth.

    146. ben madigan says:

      @ robert j sutherland

      Thank you for such a detailed and kindly reply to my suggestions on how to ensure a fair voting procedure.

      I have some doubts about your statement:

      “Distributing counting over the polling stations themselves would require a massive and unaffordable increase in numbers involved and be even harder to monitor than centralised as at present”.

      Compared with the counting station, polling places have few votes, so paying a couple of counters for a couple of hours work in each would be more than sufficient.
      Adds up over the country?
      Indeed it does but wouldn’t it be worthwhile if the vote was certified where it happened? With no doubts?
      I’m afraid I can’t understand why you think it would be even harder to monitor than at present – polling staff and representatives of each side would be breathing down counters necks!!!to say nothing of any independent observers that were present

    147. Betty Boop says:

      @ Robert J Sutherland, 19/10/16, 10:45pm

      …any accredited observer present can get an occasional glimpse of some votes, and via this inadvertent sampling process (which actually happens at every count), all parties involved can get a rough idea of how the votes are stacking up. (This is the legitimate source of Ruth Davidson’s indy comments, although any such comment made before polling closes is a direct contravention of electoral law.)

      Certainly would have found it difficult to see anything at the openings I attended and there was no way an observer could have made an assessment of how votes were cast (ballots removed from envelopes were laid face down. That would have involved a massive amount of “sampling”. I may be wrong, but, I believe it is not allowed to try to see the ballots and we had a councillor told off for apparently trying; most likely just playing with our heads as observers on the “other side” were quite hostile.

      Davidson’s information was not, I am sure, collected in this way which, of course, begs the question of how. We live in a modern age with ever increasing technological advances… so, who knows?

    148. yesindyref2 says:

      Interesting paper from the Electoral Commission abut the Ref. Basically it finds that confidence in the running of the Ref was about the same as the 2011 election. Which of course was well won by the SNP!

      http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/179807/Scottish-referendum-Public-Opinion-survey-ICM-Report-WEBSITE.pdf

    149. yesindyref2 says:

      Yay 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Found what I wanted to know at last, took long enough:

      5,579 polling stations within 2,608 polling places

      http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/179812/Scottish-independence-referendum-report.pdf

    150. yesindyref2 says:

      @Thepnr
      Yeah. That repeat and “stronger” post, I thought I was in another thread thinking oh no, here we go again with the “referendum we wuz robbed it was rigged”. Morag would have been disgusted. Turns out it was the same thread in a different tab. Ooops.

    151. Sandy says:

      Indyref2.

      Why not appoint a completely unbiased company of people to oversee & count the contents of ballot boxes in a secure environment with only those involved present. Same can be done with postal votes. Area can be completely covered by CCTV(Not Glasgow George Square type).
      Might I suggest vetted Norwegians or, perhaps, Icelanders.
      Any hanky-panky, 10 years minimum hard labour. No pun intended.

    152. ScotsCanuck says:

      I well remember that crock o’ crap, introduced by a Scottish MP (Cunningham) sitting in an English Constituency…. the “40% rule” … the Pro-Devolution vote had to have their voters mark a ballot but the No voters didn’t … so non-voters & the dead all voted “No” …… even Stalin would have been impressed by that piece of “Democracy” …. Mother of all Parliaments … my arse.

    153. Liz g says:

      Re postal Votes
      Don’t know if this will add more heat than light.

      One of my lot (a yesser) worked for North Lanarkshire Council at the time.
      A request came in for people to spend a day over at the Civic Centre to help to open the postal votes.
      They seemed desperate for volunteers to do it.
      There was definitely an observer there from Wing’s and from what she said it may have been Gerry Parker.
      At that level there was no funny business.
      Because of the way it was organised it would have been impossible for the people recruited to have been a part of any kind of coordinated effort.
      And she was looking out for it.

      A supervisor did ask her to be a bit more careful not to display the vote,she thought he was being a bit paranoid about it at the time as there is always a wee bit of human error involved. But she thought that this was as a result of the observers presence.

      While it wasn’t discussed at the time by mutual agreement of us both,because of my involvement on Wing’s.
      She did tell me later that a lot of the time you can see the vote while handling it.
      But only the ones you yourself deal with.
      Also that most of the voter’s she had handled were for no.

      So as far as that part of the process goes I am quite happy it was above board.

      I do think that it’s worth noting that the presence of the observers certainly in this case was important,and this time around that’s something we know we can do.

    154. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      ben madigan @ 00:30,

      You’re welcome. It’s important that we all have confidence in the counting system, and not descend into “Trumpsteria”.

      Yes, counting at each polling station is feasible, but that’s not the problem, which is security of the count. There would have to be something like three neutral observers at each polling station to oversee the count, then accompany the numbers together with the now-opened ballots to a central accounting point. There just isn’t the human resources to do that, plus in effect it has now created a multiplicity of vulnerabilities that previously didn’t exist.

      As things stand, the ballot boxes are locked from the start, and finally sealed before transport. A count of the number of votes cast is kept separately, and the first thing that happens when the seal is broken on each box is a count of the number of ballots (not of the votes) therein, to ensure there has been no “stuffing” or losses of ballots before/during transit.

      The system is in effect designed to minimise the need for trustworthiness at every stage, not that it’s a problem in practice anyway, but it’s trust-efficient. The volunteers who do this kind of thing are the unsung heroes of democracy, and deserve all our thanks for the essential job they diligently carry out.

      The same resourcing argument incidentally applies to the postal votes but with knobs on. The cost of having a separate validation workstation at each polling station would be enormously wasteful given their infrequence of use. Each polling district has only a small handful of these machines, and that’s all they need.

      The ballots have to be collated centrally anyway because the last stage before a result is declared is for all the rejected ballots for that electoral district to be scrutinised by all the relevant candidates plus any additional observers, in order to agree that each one of those ballots is indeed invalid. Full transparency.

      Betty Boop @ 01:15,
      Thanks for that clarification. I only saw the process during the main count, and then the ballots only became occasionally visible during normal counting like all the rest. So I have evidently assumed too much for the pre-counts. Maybe they are ultra-sensitive at the pre-counts because of their advance timing. But thanks to

      Liz g @ 08:45
      for that other insight. If the story I have been telling myself heretofore about the Ruth Davidson thing does not entirely stand up, one may speculate that instead she was tipped-off by someone sympathetic involved with the count who had some inside knowledge. Any such thing, if it happened, is to be strongly condemned because it is corrosive of trust in the process, and leads to speculation about interference that hasn’t actually occurred.

    155. Willie says:

      Voting for anything in the U.K. Is a waste of time unless the establishment wants it. Northern Ireland knows all about rigged voting systems and look how things unfolded there. So where do people go when democracy is a sham. Difficult not too think that the impacts of the English Brexiteers will play out badly in Northern Ireland – – and the PNSI think so too.

    156. Willie says:

      And yes, thinking about Amber Rudd and her call for lists to be made of foreign workers so they can be named and shamed, how exactly will this play out in NI.

      Will they list the foreign Irish from the republic and discriminate against them. A unionist charter that any true blue unionist would be proud of. They certainly know a thing or two about the hated community within their community. Oh what fun awaits and all wholeheartedly supported by folks like the Home Secretary.

      And so are we really talking about a return, and I quote a historical phrase of ..” a Protestant country for a Protestant people”. And there is many a bigot in Glasgow who’d dance to that tune too, given half a chance.

      And yes, why stop at the Irish. How about the Asians. Surely they must feature high on Madame Rudd’s radar list. Or Jews too, what about them.

      The hatred is palpable and such stigmatisation is I’ think a sure fire recipe for disaster.

      So welcome to a Britain for the British.

      And the cry – ” no foreigner here – no surrender “



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top