Scotland votes no to Independence

[PaxVobiscum]

A disadvantage regarding solar Power in North Africa is that Photovoltaics are less efficient at high temperatures. When the sun is out, solar panels that point straight at the Sun are more efficient in the UK than in North Africa.

Since much of the rest of Scotland is steadily being covered with "wind farms" (I think that term would be more accurate to describe fields full of leeks or beans, though that just might be me) all that remains in order to optimise our renewable energy programme is to blanket the east coast with solar cell arrays - zero chance of overheating as anyone who has been there on holiday will testify (and I think that choice of phrase was subconsciously suggested by memories of bathing in the North Sea on a sunny day in July).

 

[NotATrainspott]

That's clearly not true. The effect of not paying the Barnett formula and various universal service obligations for the Highlands would have a financial effect. As others have pointed out, Scotland going it alone would entirely change the likelihood of certain parties holding a majority for rUK.

It's possible that even if we do stay the days of Labour hegemony are gone. The referendum result will be reasonably tight and if you can get most of the people who had voted Yes to vote for non-Labour/Lib Dem/Tory MPs you could have one spectacular landslide. The death of the Labour party in Scotland is one of the main reasons why I cannot trust a single word they say about devolving more power. Back in 1997 they believed that the Scottish Parliament would be perpetually under their control, even under a Tory government at Westminster, so in a sense it was a way for the UK Labour party to gain more control than they had in the past. Their referendum campaign has put a higher value on retaining the Union than retaining support in Scotland for the party, so from now on it's difficult to imagine that future Scottish Parliaments will be under their control. Why would Labour then hand over more powers to a political body it had no control over? More seriously, why hand them over to the SNP, who are their greatest enemy, who relish the prospect of more powers because success in using them enhances the case for Scottish Independence.

 

[St Rollox]

People are straight wise.
A lot will change their vote from party to party depending on the election.
Although maybe the future will be different after the referendum.
Or maybe not.

 

[Butts]

Butts has already voted Yes via a postal ballot paper

To some people the economics and semantics of the split are immaterial - "To be a Nation Again" is far more important - whatever the cost in economic or social terms.

Personally I do not subscribe to this viewpoint and hope the Better Together side prevails.

My daughter who lives with her Mother in the West Midlands but attends St Andrews University has registered herself at my Scottish address in order to cast her no vote nullifying mine.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Why did you vote Yes but hope No wins?

 

[ExRes]

Truth is that events in Scotland will have zero effect on 99% of people living in England unless your some sort of British Bulldog type.
Then your ego might be a bit bruised.

How many Labour MP's are there in Scottish seats ?

When, sorry if, Scotland votes for independence then they will all be out of a job at Westminster, how many is it ? 40?, goodbye to any chance of a Labour win at the next election, so are you calling Miliband a British Bulldog ?

Good news for Dave and Boris, tough on Labour and the Unions
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Butts has already voted Yes via a postal ballot paper

To some people the economics and semantics of the split are immaterial - "To be a Nation Again" is far more important - whatever the cost in economic or social terms.

Personally I do not subscribe to this viewpoint and hope the Better Together side prevails.

My daughter who lives with her Mother in the West Midlands but attends St Andrews University has registered herself at my Scottish address in order to cast her no vote nullifying mine.

Why did you bother ? You vote for independence expecting your new country to fail miserably both economically and socially, that's quite some 'Being a Nation Again'

 

[Butts]

Why did you vote Yes but hope No wins?

Irrational I agree, but my heart ruled my head
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why did you bother ? You vote for independence expecting your new country to fail miserably both economically and socially, that's quite some 'Being a Nation Again'

I don't expect it to fail, I just don't think it will be a easy as a lot of people perceive.

 

[90019]

Salmond promises us a utopia. Utopias don't exist.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Salmond promises us a utopia. Utopias don't exist.

Even if it is not a utopia, which is as you say impossible, it can be significantly better than what we have at the moment. That's the nirvana fallacy in work here; criticising the idea of an independent Scotland because it couldn't be perfect when your own suggestion is less likely to result in a good outcome than the one that is actually possible with the alternative.

If there is a Yes vote it provides a chance for a modern, first world Anglo-Saxon nation to rebuild its democracy entirely peacefully. If we take this opportunity we can write a constitution that works to ensure that the new state could be more democratic and enshrines basic rights in a law that cannot be amended with a simple majority vote in Parliament. For example, we are more than allowed to have our constitution say that the Queen and descendants will remain as head of state, but we can have clauses that explicitly limit their power to a mere figurehead and ensure that there is a democratic pathway to peacefully becoming a republic if the people desire such a thing. We can ensure that offensive military action can only be authorised by both a vote in Parliament and a UN resolution. I am aware that some of the SNP's promises of the NHS being enshrined in the constitution are rather hopeful but there is no reason that the contract between the people and the state could not include a Bill of Rights protecting Franklin D Roosevelt's Four Freedoms - freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. It is vanishingly unlikely that such a radical constitutional change would occur in a united United Kingdom, especially since things we believed did count as some sort of constitution (the Human Rights Act) are able to be abolished by a simple majority in the Commons if the Tories win the 2015 election.

 

[90019]

Even if it is not a utopia, which is as you say impossible, it can be significantly better than what we have at the moment. That's the nirvana fallacy in work here; criticising the idea of an independent Scotland because it couldn't be perfect when your own suggestion is less likely to result in a good outcome than the one that is actually possible with the alternative.

Can be isn't the same as will be. Where exactly is all this money to fund this wonderful vision of the future going to come from? We can't rely on oil to fund us - to do so would be foolish.
There are far too many what ifs and uncertainties for me to vote yes. A large proprtion of the campaign is based upon 'this is what we think will happen', or just 'this is what we want'.
Your idealist vision of the future of Scotland is sweet, but I can't see those in the Scottish parliament being any better than those down south, judging from past experience.

So, thanks, but no thanks.
Better the devil you know, and all that.





My personal favorite from the yes campaign is the advert that crows about Scotland being predicted as one of the top 20 richest countries in the world.
What it fails to mention is that the UK as a whole is currently 8th.

That and the people who I have repeately head saying we must go independant to save the NHS - that'd be the NHS Scotland that's already devolved, so Westminster has no control over it.

 

[radamfi]

My personal favorite from the yes campaign is the advert that crows about Scotland being predicted as one of the top 20 richest countries in the world.

What it fails to mention is that the UK as a whole is currently 8th.

I presume that means that Scotland would be in the top 20 of GDP per capita. According to the IMF, the UK is 23rd (nominal) or 21st based on purchasing power parity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The UK is the 6th largest economy nominally, or 8th based on PPP. That's not really a guide of wealth as you need to take into account the number of people in each country. You wouldn't say that China (2nd largest economy) is richer than the UK, for example.

 

[ExRes]

Just out of interest ,has the mighty President Elect explained his costings for continuing free prescriptions and explained, in detail, the facts regarding university fees

He has, undoubtedly, taken into account where he is going to get the funds from to offer free uni fees for all Scottish and EU students and explained this during his campaign, has he also explained where the £150m plus is coming from that students from the rest of the UK currently have to pay, it will be illegal under EU law for him to charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students so where is the oil well that will replace that money, or does he intend to treat EU citizens from England, Wales and Northern Ireland differently to all other EU citizens and create a clear case of racism on Scotlands entry into the EU

 

[kylemore]

So, thanks, but no thanks.
Better the devil you know, and all that.

Arrangements with the Devil, no matter how attractive at the time can often turn out to be rather inconvienient indeed for one of the parties concerned - and it generally isnt Auld Nick!

Vote NO for a KICKING, because that's what's going to happen if it's NO.

Come on off your knees man!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There are two things that interest me about the referendum:

1. the disregard in the debate for the possible outcome that the referendum produces a 'yes' majority, but in a subsequent election, then one or more of the traditional UK parties achieves a majority (and the SNP is left in a minority).

2. the eligibilty to vote in the referendum is being treated as if it is an election (so non Scottish residents in Scotland may vote, while Scots living elsewhere may not); but the referendum is determining a matter of nationality, and may be open to all Scots people whose nationality is being determined. At a quick reading of the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 and the Scotland Act 1998, I was unable to find an exclusion for Scots nationals living outside their homeland to vote in the referendum. (and it seems perverse to allow short term residents of other nationalities to influence such a radical question of long-term governance and nationality).

any thoughts?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Can be isn't the same as will be. Where exactly is all this money to fund this wonderful vision of the future going to come from? We can't rely on oil to fund us - to do so would be foolish.
There are far too many what ifs and uncertainties for me to vote yes. A large proprtion of the campaign is based upon 'this is what we think will happen', or just 'this is what we want'.
Your idealist vision of the future of Scotland is sweet, but I can't see those in the Scottish parliament being any better than those down south, judging from past experience.

So, thanks, but no thanks.
Better the devil you know, and all that.

And is the future within the UK any better? If the Tories win in 2015, they are promising £25bn worth of cuts. The UK is not the bastion of complete stability and economic perfection that it has been fêted to be by Better Together. The Tories aren't solving the problems of the UK and their economic recovery is nothing but a re-inflation of the London housing market.

The Scottish Parliament is by no means perfect but it is far less bad than Westminster. If the SNP gets its wish, it has little reason to exist and so we will return to the coalition and minority governments the Parliament was designed for. When the country writes its new constitution it can enshrine proper protections of democracy - remember, after a Yes vote it's not the politicians that are in charge here but the people and I cannot see a new constitution being agreed without some sort of referendum on approving it (thus putting its legitimacy beyond doubt).

'Better the devil you know' is a statement which defies explanation when 'the devil' is what got everyone in this mess at the moment. 'The devil' protected paedophiles and other sexual offenders within its ranks. 'The devil' scammed the people of the UK out of millions of pounds of expense claims and allowed MPs - including the dear Alistair Darling - to flip their second home allowance to earn money at the expense of all others in society. 'The devil' votes to keep itself entrenched in power - both Labour and Tory - ensuring that the majority of seats remain safe and no effort is ever needed to appeal to the vast majority of voters when you cannot vote for an alternative without spoiling the 'lesser-of-two-evil' vote. 'The devil' is more than happy in engaging with rich lobbyists and allowing a revolving-door between governance and the sort of multinational tax-avoiding enterprise that stands to gain so much from the atomisation of the state, the privatisation of success and the nationalisation of risk. 'The devil' is indefensible; it does not care for you, me or the people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.

I would happily trade a few percentage points off of economic growth if I knew that my politicians were not self-serving hypocrites who have no allegiance to the people of the UK and instead will fawn over those with power and influence. Remember that if we go independent, never again will be involved in illegal wars that cost trillions of pounds - how much money would that save the independent Scottish state every year?

My personal favorite from the yes campaign is the advert that crows about Scotland being predicted as one of the top 20 richest countries in the world.
What it fails to mention is that the UK as a whole is currently 8th.

That and the people who I have repeately head saying we must go independant to save the NHS - that'd be the NHS Scotland that's already devolved, so Westminster has no control over it.

If you're not capable of understanding the difference between total GDP and GDP per capita then there's not much we can really do.

Decreases in public spending in England have a consequential effect through the Barnett formula on the block grant to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament may have official operational control over the NHS and other similar public services but its ability to fund them is controlled by Westminster in the current and all proposed devolution settlements.

None of the proposed situations give the Scottish Parliament the sort of full control over taxation that is necessary to ensure comprehensive public services survive. For example, the lack of tuition fees has a resulting economic effect upon graduates in Scotland because they can now spend that money on other things that are more useful and create more jobs, thus paying more tax money. That extra tax money does not find its way back to Scotland at all, so we never see the taxation benefit of our policies. It is the same for policies such as free childcare - the Scottish Parliament has the legislative authority to enact it but it would be entirely responsible for the cost without receiving any of the extra taxation that would come from the extra women in the workplace. Under the Barnett consequential squeeze, the Scottish Parliament would find itself with even less ability to fund current programmes despite those programmes causing a net positive effect to the finances of the state. That is complete madness, and that madness is something the No campaign are not at all trying or wanting to address.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are two things that interest me about the referendum:

1. the disregard in the debate for the possible outcome that the referendum produces a 'yes' majority, but in a subsequent election, then one or more of the traditional UK parties achieves a majority (and the SNP is left in a minority).

It is true that the White Paper is basically a list of things that the SNP would do if it were in charge of an independent Scotland. There would be a Scottish Parliament election soon after, if not before, independence day and the SNP may well win if the effect upon Labour and the Lib Dems is just so traumatic. It may be the case that the SNP fractures under the pressures of negotiation with Westminster, particularly on issues such as the future of Faslane, but even then there's nothing any unionist party can do to stop independence happening.

2. the eligibilty to vote in the referendum is being treated as if it is an election (so non Scottish residents in Scotland may vote, while Scots living elsewhere may not); but the referendum is determining a matter of nationality, and may be open to all Scots people whose nationality is being determined. At a quick reading of the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 and the Scotland Act 1998, I was unable to find an exclusion for Scots nationals living outside their homeland to vote in the referendum. (and it seems perverse to allow short term residents of other nationalities to influence such a radical question of long-term governance and nationality).

any thoughts?

There is no such thing as a Scottish person in law, only a UK citizen residing in Scotland. The franchise for the referendum is the only one that would give a legally watertight result that would be respected not only domestically but abroad as well, especially when it is fully in line with international precedent. A Scottish person living in England has no personal stake in the outcome of the referendum, because it is not about identity but instead the politics of the country.

 

[Giugiaro]

I don't know about you, but an independent Scotland from the UK can have consequences on the integrity of other European Countries that are NOT in the same situation as Ukrainian eastern regions. The best example would be Spain. That country definitively won't get away without loosing the Basque Country and maybe Catalonia and Galicia.

Oh, Catalonia has such referendum scheduled for 9 November 2014.

 

[Abpj17]

But Spain and UK are reasonably democratic. If they have agreed to the holding of a referendum, they are likely to abide with the result. China (and Russia) are different circumstances. China is very sensitive about its borders, particularly Tibet.

While Catalonia is holding a referendum, it’s not in agreement with rSpain. Amusingly, the rSpain views that that the referendum is illegal because the rest of the country must be consulted (unless what is happening in Scotland where rUK doesn’t vote).

And

A spokesperson of the European Commission declared that if Catalonia seceded from Spain it would automatically leave the European Union: "An independent state, because of its independence, would become a third country vis a vis the EU and as of the day of the independence the EU treaties will no longer apply'".

(Wikipedia)

Has anyone told Scotland?

(And, interestingly, the French PM from March - August is Catalan)

 

[St Rollox]

Spoke to a number of Scottish Labour MPs in the past few months.
None of them seemed worried about losing their job.
In fact they all said "they'd have no problem getting another job".

Nice position to be in.

 

[tranzitjim]

Let me put this to you.

What if Scotland went independent, then people find out 'geee this sucks - time to join back again'.

Perhaps we need to show the 'yes' people, that there is nothing to gain, and lots to loose. To be shown the hard way.

 

[Butts]

There are two things that interest me about the referendum:

1. the disregard in the debate for the possible outcome that the referendum produces a 'yes' majority, but in a subsequent election, then one or more of the traditional UK parties achieves a majority (and the SNP is left in a minority).

2. the eligibilty to vote in the referendum is being treated as if it is an election (so non Scottish residents in Scotland may vote, while Scots living elsewhere may not); but the referendum is determining a matter of nationality, and may be open to all Scots people whose nationality is being determined. At a quick reading of the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 and the Scotland Act 1998, I was unable to find an exclusion for Scots nationals living outside their homeland to vote in the referendum. (and it seems perverse to allow short term residents of other nationalities to influence such a radical question of long-term governance and nationality).

any thoughts?

1. If Scotland does achieve Independence I imagine the established "Scottish Wings" of UK Parties such as Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative will become totally divested from their Southern counterparts and continue to exist as entities in their own right. There will be a UK General Election in May 2015 whilst Scotland is still a constituent part. This would be really interesting to see if the Labour hegemony would end and the position each party would adopt with regard to campaigning.

2. My belief is that ONLY people resident in Scotland at the time of the referendum should be able to participate. Forget the "Tartan Coconuts" (Scottish on the outside but English on the inside) who profess their love of Scotland form the suburbs of Surrey et al

 

[kylemore]

Let me put this to you.

What if Scotland went independent, then people find out 'geee this sucks - time to join back again'.

Perhaps we need to show the 'yes' people, that there is nothing to gain, and lots to loose. To be shown the hard way.

Absolutely! Australia's has been hammering at the UK's doors for years to be allowed back since Indepedence is so rubbish!

 

[ExRes]

Spoke to a number of Scottish Labour MPs in the past few months.
None of them seemed worried about losing their job.
In fact they all said "they'd have no problem getting another job".

Nice position to be in.

As what ?, do they mean some nice little quango job at the expense of the taxpayer, as an MP in England, a few directorships from the jobs for the boys vacancy list or shelf stackers in Tesco ?

If they all lose their Westminster seats then they certainly won't be getting that MP job in Government with Labour

 

[Altnabreac]

2. the eligibilty to vote in the referendum is being treated as if it is an election (so non Scottish residents in Scotland may vote, while Scots living elsewhere may not); but the referendum is determining a matter of nationality, and may be open to all Scots people whose nationality is being determined. At a quick reading of the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 and the Scotland Act 1998, I was unable to find an exclusion for Scots nationals living outside their homeland to vote in the referendum. (and it seems perverse to allow short term residents of other nationalities to influence such a radical question of long-term governance and nationality).

any thoughts?

The other reason this franchise is being used is to be consistent with the Devolution referendums of 1979 and 1997 which also used the Local Government franchise as the basis for the referendums.

I don't think there was ever any prospect of allowing people with connections to Scotland to vote. It would be difficult on 2 grounds, firstly to agree the eligibility. Here's some suggestions:

• born in Scotland
• previously lived in Scotland
• lived in Scotland in the last 15 years (as in the Westminster franchise if moving abroad)
• parents born in Scotland
• once went on holiday to Scotland
• once ate a piece of Shortbread and had a Bay City Rollers poster...

Then once you agree to the eligibility criteria how do you prove it? With the Overseas franchise for Westminster elections you have to submit a witness statement to prove your eligibility but very few people do.

Once you start bringing in eligible voters in the rUK (under whichever chosen criteria) you create a huge administrative burden if it were widely taken up.

A parliamentary briefing paper from Westminster on overseas voting identified that there were:

4.4 million of them [British Citizens] of voting age, only 23,388 were registered for an overseas vote.

In Scotland this could be around 400,000 potential voters with perhaps another million or even more living in rUK. As an administrative task it would be simply overwheleming.

Then of course you get to political considerations around democratic legitimacy of voters affecting the political future of an area in which they didn't reside. The political ramifications of Scottish residents voting for one outcome but expats changing the result one way or the other would be profound.

Incidentally this is not necessarily a point of benefit for one side or the other, there is little firm evidence of expats Scots views on independence, although anecdotally it has been suggested that rUK based expats may lean more towards No while expats around the rest of the world lean towards Yes.

Either way if expats had changed the result from that voted for by residents it would create an enormous political crisis with no obvious solutions.

The current vote may not be ideal in many ways but on the Franchise I think its the best option that has been chosen.

 

[Giugiaro]

And

A spokesperson of the European Commission declared that if Catalonia seceded from Spain it would automatically leave the European Union: "An independent state, because of its independence, would become a third country vis a vis the EU and as of the day of the independence the EU treaties will no longer apply'".
(Wikipedia)

Has anyone told Scotland?

I don't find where I found this information, but a seceding nation could still apply to the EU and the Eurozone, though the nation still has to go through the same process as other countries went through.

About the Eurozone, the Yes Scotland report states that it's hard to join the Euro because the criteria for joining the Eurozone are "too difficult to meet immediately".

• Inflation rate: No more than 1.5 percentage points higher than the three lowest inflation member states of the EU;
• Government finance: Ratio of annual deficit to GDP less than 3% and ratio of gross debt to GDP less than 60%;
• Exchange rate: Applicant countries must have been a member of the Exchange Rate Mechanism II for 2 consecutive years and should not have devalued its currency during that period; and
• Long-term interest rates: The nominal long-term interest rate must not be more than two percentage points higher than in the three lowest inflation member states.

I wonder how many Eurozone members still meet the criteria... :roll:

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is no such thing as a Scottish person in law, only a UK citizen residing in Scotland. The franchise for the referendum is the only one that would give a legally watertight result that would be respected not only domestically but abroad as well, especially when it is fully in line with international precedent. A Scottish person living in England has no personal stake in the outcome of the referendum, because it is not about identity but instead the politics of the country.

The debate is not about identity, I agree, but there is a good argument to be made that one consequence of the referendum is a consequence of nationality. My point was that the enabling legislation doesn't specifically exclude Scots persons living elsewhere but simply refers to the Representation of the People Act 1983 which requires local registers of voters to be maintained (similarly, it appears not to exclude temporary residents of other nationalities).
This opens the potential for a challenge in law, just as Mahon and others challenged the referendum in the Supreme Court in July, (Scottish prisoners who were excluded by the 1983 Act in which is in clear conflict with A3P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)).

ECHR A3P1 states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” We should note the 2 phrases "the opinion of the people" and "the choice of the legislature". The Courts have established that these conditions create the difference between an election (in which a prisoner may vote) and the referendum (in which they may not).

I don't think there was ever any prospect of allowing people with connections to Scotland to vote. It would be difficult on 2 grounds, . . . . .

. . . Once you start bringing in eligible voters in the rUK (under whichever chosen criteria) you create a huge administrative burden if it were widely taken up. . . .

I fully agree that it is not a practical suggestion, although being a 'huge administrative burden' is not in itself an adequate reason for not aligning eligibility with Scottish nationality!

The Act states:

2. Those entitled to vote in an independence referendum

(1) A person is entitled to vote in an independence referendum if, on the date on which the poll at the referendum is held, the person is—

(a) aged 16 or over,

(b) registered in either—
. (i) the register of local government electors maintained under section 9(1)(b) of the 1983 Act for any area in Scotland, or
. (ii) the register of young voters maintained under section 4 of this Act for any such area,

(c) not subject to any legal incapacity to vote (age apart), and

(d) a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the European Union.​

This clearly excludes residents who are not "relevant citizens", and could, arguably, have been worded differently, such as by excluding Commonwealth citizens and/or EU citizens. [The reference to the RoI as distinct from the EU is unusual]

I have no argument with a political election being confined to the residents of the area of governance, but I am less happy with the principle of creating a nation state being determined by many who may have a more temporary interest in the nation, and not by some with a permanent interest which excludes residence at present (e.g. owning a substantial investment in Scottish property or other assets; having Power of Attorney on behalf of Scottish citizens unable to vote through their incapacity; holding Directorships or Trusteeships of Scottish enterprise, institutions, Charities; those working in Scotland for Scottish institutions, etc.).

Thanks both for the considered replies.

 

[90019]

If you're not capable of understanding the difference between total GDP and GDP per capita then there's not much we can really do.

I'll be honest, I hadn't done much looking into that particular one, but was just going on what I'd been told by someone else.



I'd like to carry on with a debate, but unfortunately I have far too much else going on just now, and really don't have the time to, so I probably won't be doing much more than just reading what others are saying when I get a chance.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

About the Eurozone, the Yes Scotland report states that it's hard to join the Euro because the criteria for joining the Eurozone are "too difficult to meet immediately".

Hence the rather amusing insistence by the Yes camp that they will be allowed into the EU as a 'special exception' via a fast track and not have to join the Euro.

Given that there are several other countries in the EU wanting to quash independence movements, I can't see them all voting to let Scotland in easily, if anything they might want to make it more awkward for them, to avoid encouraging their own migrations.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Hence the rather amusing insistence by the Yes camp that they will be allowed into the EU as a 'special exception' via a fast track and not have to join the Euro.

Given that there are several other countries in the EU wanting to quash independence movements, I can't see them all voting to let Scotland in easily, if anything they might want to make it more awkward for them, to avoid encouraging their own migrations.

The genie would be out of the bottle the moment the referendum would be called for Yes. The only thing the EU and other states could then do would be to engage in damage mitigation. However, to be perfectly honest even if No do win it will still have an effect upon Catalonia and others because it would have set a precedent for modern democracies to settle these problems with free and fair referenda.

Now I'm aware that some EU states are a bit touchy about spectacularly minor issues - Greece really, really doesn't like Macedonia being called that so it's the Former Yugoslav Republic of it instead. However, the issues involved in Scotland and the EU are far, far deeper than any problem with naming because of the unique quasi-state nature of the EU compared to most other international organisations. A union with such spectacularly strong legal links cannot be easily broken up easily. For a state to leave the EU requires that state to want to leave, and be willing to pass legislation to that effect bringing back sovereignty from the union. If Scotland were unduly prevented from joining the EU, it would be under no obligation to pass laws specifically removing itself from it so it could act as a quasi-member that then would be beyond the control of the other countries. Indeed, no one would actually be obliged to take up a Scottish passport instead of keeping or trading in their UK one so you could have the absurd situation where Scotland would exist as an independent state but it would officially have no citizens, ensuring that any EU rights remain through the continuing UK passport.

When people make statements about the EU putting forward barriers to an independent Scotland very rarely do they actually go into the real detail of the result of such barriers. From their perspective any detail is superfluous because the notion of Scotland actually becoming an independent state is remote. However, what we've seen is that the scare stories may have kept support for the Union high in the past, but now as the Yes campaign runs on all cylinders the effect of people basically realising they've been lied to is for them to move to the Yes side faster than the No side can ever reclaim support. The case for independence was always going to be made in the final weeks, days and hours of the campaign. The No side have painted themselves into a corner now since scare stories are no longer working and the effect of them and other positions is that they are no longer trusted when saying they would make the Union better.

There's to be another debate tomorrow on STV with Nicola Sturgeon, Patrick Harvie and Elaine C Smith against Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson and Douglas Alexander and none of those three are going to be able to win it. This will be an opportune moment for the Yes side to show itself as a multifaceted campaign representing vast swathes of society, contrasting with Better Together which is basically made up entirely of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory party politicians and members. In particular, the fact that it will be women debating will assuage people that the referendum is not just a matter of two old white men shouting at each other, as both previous big debates have been.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is how bad the UK Government is. Not preparing for a very real possibility that would have real effects upon the UK is inexcusable.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/158777c6-31fe-11e4-b929-00144feabdc0.html

UK government has no contingency plans in event of Scots’ Yes vote

By Jim Pickard, Chief Political Correspondent
Views of the border between Scotland and England at Carter Bar on the A68 on August 17, 2014. A month to the day until Scotland votes on whether to split from Britain, opinion polls Monday showed the pro-independence camp gaining ground as First Minister Alex Salmond insisted his side had a "spring in their step". But the polls still showed a strong lead for the 'No' camp ahead of the vote on September 18, suggesting voters are on course to reject independence. Debate in the campaign has so far focused on Scotland's economy, particularly on the currency post-independence.

The British government has no contingency plans for a vote in favour of Scottish independence just three weeks from the historic referendum on whether Scotland should break away from the United Kingdom.

Opinion polls still indicate a modest majority of Scottish voters in favour of keeping the 307-year-old union with England but the final vote on September 18 is still expected to be close.

One survey last week suggested the unionists’ campaign’s lead had halved following a televised debate where Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party first minister, was seen to have defeated Better Together spokesman Alistair Darling.

Analysts at UBS have predicted that a Yes vote would open a prolonged period of constitutional uncertainty, a slump in business confidence, a fall in the value of the pound and even a detrimental impact on the FTSE 100.

Negotiations would begin in earnest over issues such as oil reserves, outstanding debt and shared institutions, the bank said. Major questions would arise over issues such as what would happen to the UK’s Scotland-based nuclear submarines.

The biggest point of conflict would be the currency, with the SNP insisting that an independent Scotland could keep the pound but the Conservative and Labour parties denying this would be the case.

David Cameron’s official spokesman said on Monday that officials had no detailed plans on what would happen in the event of a surprise Yes vote.

“No such work (is being) undertaken,” the prime minister’s official spokesman told reporters when asked if the government had produced contingency plans for a Yes vote. “The government’s entire focus is on making the case for the UK staying together.”

Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP in Westminster, accused the government of complacency. “This is extraordinary complacency from Westminster with less than three weeks to go to the vote – they are doing a disservice to people north and south of the border,” he said.

Mr Robertson said the race was becoming “very tight”, according to the polls.

“Westminster politicians are only interested in scare stories and negativity – not making sensible decisions and plans in the very likely event of a Yes vote.”

Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, has by contrast revealed that Threadneedle Street does have contingency plans for a split.

UBS has previously warned that British banks face a serious risk of depositors at Scottish institutions shifting their money south of the border after a Yes vote.

Asked about the UBS report, Mr Carney – speaking in August – made clear that a vote for independence would not affect the central bank’s commitment to stand behind the financial system in Scotland, at least until independence was actually achieved.

“Whatever happens in the vote, the Bank of England will be the continuing authority for financial stability for some period of time, certainly over the interim period, and we will look to discharge our responsibilities accordingly,” the governor said.

“We have contingency plans we develop . . . I would underscore in terms of our responsibilities for financial stability we have a wide range of tools and plans.”

The central bank has already had a number of technical discussions with Scottish officials on issues surrounding the vote.

 

[ExRes]

If there was a yes vote when would Scotland actually become independent ?

It would seem to me that any sensible government would act upon the possibility of independence when the electorate indicated that it actually wanted it, not waste time, resources and money on a possibility

Talking about bad government, has Salmond actually made a plan to deal with the loss of finance and jobs that will go with the companies who have stated that they will leave Scotland in the case of a yes vote ?

I also notice that no pro-independence contributors on here have responded to my comments on NHS prescriptions and University fees

 

[NotATrainspott]

Just out of interest ,has the mighty President Elect explained his costings for continuing free prescriptions and explained, in detail, the facts regarding university fees

He has, undoubtedly, taken into account where he is going to get the funds from to offer free uni fees for all Scottish and EU students and explained this during his campaign, has he also explained where the £150m plus is coming from that students from the rest of the UK currently have to pay, it will be illegal under EU law for him to charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students so where is the oil well that will replace that money, or does he intend to treat EU citizens from England, Wales and Northern Ireland differently to all other EU citizens and create a clear case of racism on Scotlands entry into the EU

Free prescription fees cost nothing like what you think they do, given that the vast majority of prescriptions in England are given out to people free of charge anyway for various reasons. The cost of the extra bureaucracy needed to handle charging only a tiny number of people a nominal sum is going to be considerable, leaving the actual cost of the policy to be low enough to be more than affordable as a standard social policy.

EU law allows for things to be based upon residency so if the EU does not accept the argument that rUK students would flood north and destroy the system, they can simply charge everyone for fees but have a residency-based grant or some other system to balance that out. It is more than possible that the shock of a Yes vote would kick rUK politics into gear again and it might become not infeasible to suggest the rUK tuition fees would be dropped back down to £3k or so, especially when the current policy costs more in the long term than not charging at all.

It's also not racism at all. Much of the reason that social democracies can pay for these programmes is that they have a resulting economic effect that boosts taxation - if we didn't spend money on primary and secondary education, our taxation revenues would collapse, so what makes tertiary education different? The only problem you have is that if rUK students come in their droves, theoretically they would have free tertiary education but the economic and taxation boost that would happen as a result would go to a foreign taxation system. The EU norm of reciprocal agreements for this works when all countries in it have reasonably similar policies, and when there is a system of redistributing wealth across the Union if it needs it. The rUK policy does not fit with the system at all and it is the problem here.

If there was a yes vote when would Scotland actually become independent ?

It would seem to me that any sensible government would act upon the possibility of independence when the electorate indicated that it actually wanted it, not waste time, resources and money on a possibility

Talking about bad government, has Salmond actually made a plan to deal with the loss of finance and jobs that will go with the companies who have stated that they will leave Scotland in the case of a yes vote ?

I also notice that no pro-independence contributors on here have responded to my comments on NHS prescriptions and University fees

Yes, if one more person casts a Yes vote than people cast a No vote then Scotland will become an independent country. No ifs, no buts. The Edinburgh Agreement is now as much a irrevocable part of the UK constitution as the precedent that the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons rather than the Lords.

What I'm saying is that at all points, the possibility of Scotland becoming independent was far, far higher than most other possibilities that the UK Goverment have contingency plans for. The effect of Scottish independence upon the remaining UK would be spectacular, especially when it has a third of the land mass and all your nuclear weapons. Even Canada made preparations in case the Quebecois won.

Companies have said various things about their preparations for a Yes vote but none have actually said they would pick up sticks and leave. Whether they feel they need to or not is dependent upon the outcomes of the negotiations. Even if RBS or others have to split their banking businesses into Scotland and rUK in order to satisfy EU rules, there is no absolute need for them to move all their headquarters jobs down to London because there's no necessity to actually make decisions in the same country that your headquarters is located in. If it makes sense economically to keep operations up here, as moving an entire labour force down to London would be a rather expensive affair, then they will do that.