"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

[Myrddraal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-16702392

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has set out the question he intends to ask voters in a referendum on Scottish independence.
The SNP leader said Scots would be asked: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" in a ballot which he wants to hold in 2014.



So, since I think the members of the backroom will all agree with the principal of self determination, I'll ask a different question: What should the question be in the referendum?


Alex Salmond's proposed question is about as leading a question as they come.

Even if you can look past the outrageous opening "Do you agree" the use of the phrase "independent country" is bad enough by itself.

Scotland already is a separate country from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Independence" is a relative term, as any eurosceptic will emphatically tell you.

Alex Salmond knows perfectly well that the question he is proposing is leading and ambiguous. Most people who only give half a thought to the question will agree with his question. After all, Scotland should definitely be a country, right?

So what should the question be? Submissions on a postcard to Holyrood.

[Lemur]

I blame Mel Gibson. In this, as in all things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nope.

[Cute Wolf]

let's blame Mel Gibson about Braveheart...

even Scotland is my favourite faction in M2TW... :D

[Rhyfelwyr]

I really can't stand to watch any on the debate going on about this since it is stomach-churning and sadly reflective of what the world has become. I will not be voting in this referendum since that would imply that I thought it had some sort of legitimacy. But then I have never voted, I cannot express how angry I am at the government right now, my whole life has been a lie.

[Sarmatian]

That's kind of one-sided. Change it to "Do you think Scotland should remain part of the Union or become Independant?" would be a little more fair.

Either way, self-determination is a good thing. If I was a Scott, I'd probably vote to remain part of the UK--but I'm not a Scott, so I'm just happy to see referrendums like this get asked. It cuts away the rhetoric and shows you what the people think.

Question in a referendum must be phrased in way that you can answer with a simple yes or no.

[rory_20_uk]

If Scotland wants to go it alone, fine. I really couldn't care less. That the plan appears to be to leave the UK... and immediately join the EU seems nonsensical, but there we go.

I think that the "devolution plus" is having one's cake and eating it too.

Whichever choice is made, at least the Scots can say they chose it - and hopefully stop whining.

[Kralizec]

Scotland already is a separate country from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Independence" is a relative term, as any eurosceptic will emphatically tell you.

Alex Salmond knows perfectly well that the question he is proposing is leading and ambiguous. Most people who only give half a thought to the question will agree with his question. After all, Scotland should definitely be a country, right?

So what should the question be? Submissions on a postcard to Holyrood.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

I don't think it's a leading question. Country is usually treated as being interchangeable with "sovereign state" - and Scotland clearly isn't at present, neither is Flanders, Quebec, Florida etc. I get the impression you're deliberately skipping over the "independent" part in the question.

I agree that this is all Mel Gibson's fault.

[Furunculus]

"Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

All three big Unionist parties to campaign for a "yes" vote alongside the promise of more localism/subsidiarity for all parts the UK.

[gaelic cowboy]

I know the one group who desperately and most definately want Scotland in the UK is Unionists from Northern Ireland.

A big part of there identity comes from the idea of Scotland and the England being in a union, there is most likely a university thesis going a begging on the implications of Scots independence for Northern Irish Unionism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Northern Irish link is definitely there and think it is really sad we will become a separate country from it. Ever since the Kingdom of Dal Riada the water has meant the west coast of Scotland has been more connected to Ulster than the rest of Scotland itself.

My whole family history is one of moving back and forth between the Clydeside and the Harland and Wolff shipyards, from Tigers Bay to Govan and back again etc. And if you go back a few hundred years they must have went over as settlers from Scotland in the plantations.

I love Ulster and I don't see any distinction between a Scottish or Ulster identity. I can't stand hearing any more of this talk about "the Scottish people" and how we are so different from the rest of the UK. And most of all I can't stand the fact that that Alex Salmond acts like he has a right to speak on my behalf and represent my interests.

I hate how this whole debate is based on axioms that I don't accept. Guess what, you don't know me and you don't know anything about me, so please shut up.

[InsaneApache]

https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/27063

There you go. Sorted. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Alec me lad.

[Pannonian]

"Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

All three big Unionist parties to campaign for a "yes" vote alongside the promise of more localism/subsidiarity for all parts the UK.

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

[InsaneApache]

They asked the wrong region. Instead of the Geordies they should have asked Yorkshire. Then next on the agenda would be to teach those pesky Lancastrians a lesson.

[Furunculus]

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

and i agreed with the objection, i don't want another layer of government.

but i am quite happy to shift (some) more responsibility onto local government (including revenue raising power to match), whilst imbuing english MP's sitting in westminster with the same power that have been devolved to the WA and SP.

[Beskar]

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

Issue is, that isn't the case at all, since that "level of government" already exists, it simply wasn't democratic and controlled by an unelected quango. It is because of the North East that many other regions missed out big time, except for London who voted for "Yes" and thus us having the London Assembly.

[Pannonian]

They asked the wrong region. Instead of the Geordies they should have asked Yorkshire. Then next on the agenda would be to teach those pesky Lancastrians a lesson.

What colour rose do you think Liz should wear for the dust up? Do you think anyone with Welsh antecedents should be barred from any kind of power in England?

[Strike For The South]

England> than all the other countries on those two silly islands

[econ21]

I don't think it's a leading question.

I didn't think it was a leading question either, although Myrddaal has a point about the "agree" wording. (Who wants to be disagreeable? Well, probably the Scots, so that's ok, then. .... I kid, I kid).

But opinion poll results are very sensitive to the exact wording of the questions put. It would be interesting to do polling to see the % agreeing with Salmond's question and disagreeing with Fununculus's formulation ("Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the UK?"). I'd wager the former is a bigger number. Aside from the different language ("independent country" vs "part of the UK"), I guess which you take to be the default answer (the "yes" option) may be significant. It has to be a yes, no question but which should be the yes and which the no?

As it's a vote on independence, perhaps that should be the yes. How about a compromise: "Do you wish Scotland to leave the United Kingdom?"

[Papewaio]

There should be an assembly for each of the lands in the Union & a combined UK parliament above that. The UK parliament can focus on external issues, defense and intra-land issues. The smaller assemblies can focus on policing, teaching and medical issues for their issues.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What would the benefits of elected institutions at sub-national level be? The only region on the UK that might have a unique enough situation to warrant such institutions would be Northern Ireland. But hardly Scotland.

[Sigurd]

If you guys ever lack funds... we could buy back the Shetlands for a decent compensation.

[spankythehippo]

If I vote yes, will I get a lifetime supply of deep-fried pizza, soon becoming Scotland's signature dish?

[InsaneApache]

No.

Deep fried Mars bars, yes.

[Myrddraal]

As far as I'm concerned, 'do you agree' is a definite no-no.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/leading_questions.htm#ask

As from the link above:
Ask for agreement

A very direct leading question is where they are closed questions that clearly ask for agreement, making it easier for the other person to say 'yes' than 'no'.
"Do you agree that we need to save the whales?"
"Is it true that you are happier now?"

I think that a simple "Should..." is much cleaner, so to adapt econ21's question:

"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?"

I mean this is really basic stuff, which is why I don't doubt Alex Salmond knows it is leading and intentionally made it leading. Given that, I suspect that using the term 'country' is also a fully intentional attempt to steer voters into a 'yes' answer.

[Papewaio]

Mon dieu! Do you hold similar opinions for all nations? I see an opportunity here to make a states' rights-er out of you.

Australia or more completely the Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The six states were all former self governing colonies. So all I'm suggesting is a similar model to this and I still uses he Westminister system and the Queen is still head of the Nation.

We have local, state and federal governments in Australia. In NSW you can be fined for not turning up for voting at any of those levels. Each level should be focused on its remit that is potholes, education and defense respectively.

[econ21]

I think that a simple "Should..." is much cleaner, so to adapt econ21's question:

"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?"

Agreed! Can you forward this suggestion to David Cameron please? Or has Salmond assumed control over the wording of the question? If he has, Cameron would have been a fool to pick a fight over the date and inclusion of a "third option" rather than the wording.

The Conservative position on the referendum is a curious one, and rather refreshing for someone opposed to the contemporary cynical view of politicians and politics. If Scotland goes independent, the consequent electoral arithmetic would be a near mortal blow to Labour and could keep the Conservatives in power for a generation or two. On purely partisan interest, the Tories should support independence. As a Labour supporter, I am glad they are more principled.

[lars573]

Australia or more completely the Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The six states were all former self governing colonies. So all I'm suggesting is a similar model to this and I still uses he Westminister system and the Queen is still head of the Nation.

Which was brought to Australia after it had worked in Canada for 20+ years. Which only augments your point of the Westminister system being compatible with a federal state structure.

[Papewaio]

Because of the American Civil war the Australian Consitution does not allow a state to separate from the nation. As such to have the nations join in the first place the states had to be given fairly good rights. But once joined they cannot leave outside of brute force of course.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But, let's say, the citizens of <insert australian province here> all agreed on one thing: They didn't want to be part of Australia any more. Would it be right to use force to make them stay? If so, why? For the benefits that they provide to the rest of the nation? If so, how is that different from taking anything from anyone else at gun point?

They never would ALL agree. But I don't think a strong desire is enough to justify secession. There has to be a stronger justifying reason.

For example I don't think Martha's Vinyard has the right to secede from the US...