Scotland votes no to Independence

[yorksrob]

I imagine that if Scotland signed, the rUK would be compelled to sign (and thus probably ROI as well, who are only outside to ease ROI/NI cross-border movement). But far right parties and media are likely to make tremendous capital over this and there could be a strong backlash against Scotland if they are seen as forcing the rUK's hand.

I can't imagine that. Infact, I suspect public opinion within the rump UK would harden on the issue and Scotland would be left having to decide whether to stay out of the EU (provided the EU lets them join) which would be unpalatable to them, or put the border up.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I don't understand your assertion that Schengen is in the interest of other EU countries. Why and in what way? It would make so little difference that it's almost not worth the argument. Everything and everybody has to stop at the border, even Eurostar passengers for tunnel security. Explain your assertion please. If you mean in the interests of political expediency, maybe I get that the EU is capable of that, but destroying a functional arrangement to replace it with much less is certainly worth fighting against.

Obviously there is a cost, of providing border facilities at airports and sea ports used by arrivals from the UK. But I think the bigger issue is wanting to make moves towards independence more difficult.

For instance, Spain has been fighting independence movements within itself for decades and is hardly going to want it to be smooth sailing for a seceding nation lest it encourage others.

Now it is possible that Scotland might not have to re-apply - there is some ambiguity in the rules that I imagine will be of profit only to the legal teams who have to fight it out - or that the other nations might welcome an independent Scotland. But these are factors that cannot, as the SNP seem to keen to do, be dismissed.

 

[St Rollox]

Is it me or are the 'No' campaign beginning to look more and more desperate?

At street level the last couple of days have been bizarre.
I'd to calm down two No voting workmates.
You'd think North Korean tanks had entered the Glasgow City limits rather than one opinion poll saying it's looking close.
This is from people who in years past stated "politics are boring".

 

[JohnB57]

Obviously there is a cost, of providing border facilities at airports and sea ports used by arrivals from the UK. But I think the bigger issue is wanting to make moves towards independence more difficult.

For instance, Spain has been fighting independence movements within itself for decades and is hardly going to want it to be smooth sailing for a seceding nation lest it encourage others.

Now it is possible that Scotland might not have to re-apply - there is some ambiguity in the rules that I imagine will be of profit only to the legal teams who have to fight it out - or that the other nations might welcome an independent Scotland. But these are factors that cannot, as the SNP seem to keen to do, be dismissed.

Very salient points that I can't disagree with at all.

Yes, it's ambiguous - and that very ambiguity is, in my view, playing into the hands of the Yes campaign. But I still maintain that the threats of border controls and lack of monetary union are pretty empty - a bit like threatening your belligerent teenager that if they actually choose to leave home, you won't have them round for Christmas dinner.

You know, a funny thing is happening. Despite being emphatically in favour of maintaining the union, the increasing prospect of Scotland's independence gives me some pretty warm positive feelings about being able to be English without having all the the guilt poured on us.

 

[yorksrob]

Very salient points that I can't disagree with at all.

Yes, it's ambiguous - and that very ambiguity is, in my view, playing into the hands of the Yes campaign. But I still maintain that the threats of border controls and lack of monetary union are pretty empty - a bit like threatening your belligerent teenager that if they actually choose to leave home, you won't have them round for Christmas dinner.

You know, a funny thing is happening. Despite being emphatically in favour of maintaining the union, the increasing prospect of Scotland's independence gives me some pretty warm positive feelings about being able to be English without having all the the guilt poured on us.

I don't believe we'd do anything to deliberately obstruct the Scottish state. For example, we'd not block Scottish EU entry because we'd have nothing to gain from it (unlike Spain for example). There's a world of difference between that and expecting us to change an established policy such as not joi'ing Shengen just to suit Scotland. We wouldnt stop Scotland joining the free movement zone with us and the Rep of Ireland, but again that depends on what hoops the EU makes Scotland jump through.

Similarly lack of currency Union wouldn't even be about Scotland, simply that the Nritish people have had an ample demonstration of why currency unions don't work.

 

[Greenback]

I'm starting to think that some people are being pushed into the 'Yes' camp by some of the stuff that is being said by the 'No' campaign. I am not bothered about the result either way. Whatever happens it will result in more decision making for Scotland.

 

[JohnB57]

I don't believe we'd do anything to deliberately obstruct the Scottish state. For example, we'd not block Scottish EU entry because we'd have nothing to gain from it (unlike Spain for example). There's a world of difference between that and expecting us to change an established policy such as not joi'ing Shengen just to suit Scotland. We wouldnt stop Scotland joining the free movement zone with us and the Rep of Ireland, but again that depends on what hoops the EU makes Scotland jump through.

Similarly lack of currency Union wouldn't even be about Scotland, simply that the Nritish people have had an ample demonstration of why currency unions don't work.

But in reality, we would be far more pro-active in supporting Scotland not entering Schengen, should they not wish to. I can't imagine why they would want it - it would be a turkey voting for Christmas in my opinion.

Currency union worked reasonably well with Ireland for half a century didn't it? I don't think you can cite the European model as an example of why it wouldn't work for Scotland, if that's what you refer to.

 

[Butts]

I'm starting to think that some people are being pushed into the 'Yes' camp by some of the stuff that is being said by the 'No' campaign. I am not bothered about the result either way. Whatever happens it will result in more decision making for Scotland.

Look what happened in Quebec in 1995

The secessionists were ahead in the Poll by several points on polling day after a shaky start. When it actually came to putting an x in the box the voters chose to remain as part of Canada by a small margin.

 

[Metrailway]

But in reality, we would be far more pro-active in supporting Scotland not entering Schengen, should they not wish to. I can't imagine why they would want it - it would be a turkey voting for Christmas in my opinion.

Currency union worked reasonably well with Ireland for half a century didn't it? I don't think you can cite the European model as an example of why it wouldn't work for Scotland, if that's what you refer to.

There was no currency union between Eire and the UK after 1928. Eire did not use Pound Sterling after 1928. The Irish used their own Punt which was pegged to GBP until 1978.

Modern day examples of currency pegging include some nations in the 'process (ERM II)' of joining the Euro, and a large number of countries in the Middle East and Africa usually pegged to the USD.

Former Taoiseach John Bruton said of the Irish Punt, "At that time, we had a situation where interest rate policy was determined in London without any Irish input, and we went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain"

 

[21C101]

I'm starting to think that some people are being pushed into the 'Yes' camp by some of the stuff that is being said by the 'No' campaign. I am not bothered about the result either way. Whatever happens it will result in more decision making for Scotland.

To my mind there are two key considerations.

1)Who runs the country. Outsiders who you cannot depose however good they are or pepole you choose and can remove, however bad or good they are.

2) Are the hardships that will be endured over the next 20-30 years by choosing (1) worth it. And there will be severe hardships as they get used to a post barnett treasury plus the extra costs of running your own state and loss of cross subsidies that inevitably come from agglomeration, whatever the nats claim to the contrary.

To my mind the yes camp have had their heads in the sand trying to shout down anyone who points out (2) and are plain naive in thinking that countries like Spain will put Scotlands interests over Spains interest and not veto their entry into the EU, or at least extract a truly formidible price after a long delay such as join the euro and schenegan etc.

Finally, I think the Yes side have underestimated the ruthlessness with which the partition treaty will be negotiated by rUK. The UK government have played this with a very low profile but if there is a yes vote the gloves will be well and truly off. It will not be plasant to watch.

Indeed, if there is a very close YES, there may be a strategy of delaying the split past the next Scottish election as treaty negotiations wont be done in time with the consequences (ie Scotland roundly shafted in the treaty & by the EU) very starkly obvious by the time of the next Scottish election and Scottish Labour campaigning on calling it off in favour of devo max if they win.

Many significant european powers including Spain, France and Italy do not want this genie out of the box for selfish reasons. I speak not as someone intrinsically hostile to the idea but as a realist, sympathetic to the idea of national self determination, who knows that the UK will face similar issues and hardships to get out of the EU and restore our sovereignty.

 

[W230]

I'm starting to think that some people are being pushed into the 'Yes' camp by some of the stuff that is being said by the 'No' campaign. I am not bothered about the result either way. Whatever happens it will result in more decision making for Scotland.

It would probably be a good set up that makes it fair for the whole UK - allow all the regions (not just Scotland) to plan their own spending/raise their own money. Interestingly I think London would already like to be it's own independent city state given the chance!

Read an interesting piece in the news a few weeks back that said it's widely recognised (worldwide) that in the lead up to referendums of these sort that as the date draws nearer people tell opinion polls they want change and whatever the change is sees a huge increase in popularity (as the "yes" camp have). But then come election day, the status quo wins and things stick as they were. I'm willing to bet my shoes and a shortbread biscuit that we see no change here and that after all this posturing, gesturing and arguing, Scotland remains in the UK.

OOI, why could England not just decide to become independent from the rest of the UK? Why does it feel it benefits from the attached minions?

I should add that I prefer a UK setup before I get lambasted (or maybe this will get me lambasted!!!)

 

[Greenback]

Look what happened in Quebec in 1995

The secessionists were ahead in the Poll by several points on polling day after a shaky start. When it actually came to putting an x in the box the voters chose to remain as part of Canada by a small margin.

Quite. No one knows how the vote will actually go on the day. Opinion polls have been wrong before. It does seem to me that the Yes campaign has the momentum at the moment, though.

To my mind there are two key considerations.

1)Who runs the country. Outsiders who you cannot depose however good they are or pepole you choose and can remove, however bad or good they are.

2) Are the hardships that will be endured over the next 20-30 years by choosing (1) worth it. And there will be severe hardships as they get used to a post barnett treasury plus the extra costs of running your own state and loss of cross subsidies that inevitably come from agglomeration, whatever the nats claim to the contrary.

To my mind the yes camp have had their heads in the sand trying to shout down anyone who points out (2) and are plain naive in thinking that countries like Spain will put Scotlands interests over Spains interest and not veto their entry into the EU, or at least extract a truly formidible price after a long delay such as join the euro and schenegan etc.

This is exactly the choice that faces Scotland. The people will decide whether they are prepared to accept any hardship in future years as a price worth paying to have more control over their own destiny in the longer term.

I don't see this as too dissimilar from UKIP, who seem prepared to accept short term financial disbenefits in exchange for throwing off the evil yoke that is the EU.

I am not saying I agree with UKIP or the SNP, you understand. But that's how it looks to me as an outsider!

Finally, I think the Yes side have underestimated the ruthlessness with which the partition treaty will be negotiated by rUK. The UK government have played this with a very low profile but if there is a yes vote the gloves will be well and truly off. It will not be plasant to watch.

I think you may well be right. Any negotiations are likely to be difficult.

Indeed, if there is a very close YES, there may be a strategy of delaying the split past the next Scottish election as treaty negotiations wont be done in time with the consequences (ie Scotland roundly shafted in the treaty & by the EU) very starkly obvious by the time of the next Scottish election and Scottish Labour campaigning on calling it off in favour of devo max if they win.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be the case. However, if there is any sort of mandate for independence coming out of the referendum, it would be politically very interesting to see what would happen in response.

Many significant european powers including Spain, France and Italy do not want this genie out of the box for selfish reasons. I speak not as someone intrinsically hostile to the idea but as a realist, sympathetic to the idea of national self determination, who knows that the UK will face similar issues and hardships to get out of the EU and restore our sovereignty.

They will have their own reasons, but I'm sure they will be pragmatic enough to do whatever is best for them whatever happens. The real point is the will of the people of Scotland. Then the rest of the UK.

It would probably be a good set up that makes it fair for the whole UK - allow all the regions (not just Scotland) to plan their own spending/raise their own money. Interestingly I think London would already like to be it's own independent city state given the chance!

I agree with this!

Read an interesting piece in the news a few weeks back that said it's widely recognised (worldwide) that in the lead up to referendums of these sort that as the date draws nearer people tell opinion polls they want change and whatever the change is sees a huge increase in popularity (as the "yes" camp have). But then come election day, the status quo wins and things stick as they were. I'm willing to bet my shoes and a shortbread biscuit that we see no change here and that after all this posturing, gesturing and arguing, Scotland remains in the UK.

I think a No vote is more likely, but as I said above, no one will know until the votes are in!

OOI, why could England not just decide to become independent from the rest of the UK? Why does it feel it benefits from the attached minions?

I think that the answer as to why the English seem less interested in English independence has already been touched on somewhere in this thread. For a lot of English people, the UK is England, and many of them find it difficult to differentiate between the UK, Britain (or whatever you want to call it) and their own country.

Perhaps a close or Yes vote might focus English minds more on breaking up the UK as it is now and finding some other method of keeping the home nations linked whilst they all have independent and full decision making powers. Who knows?! I certainly don't!

I should add that I prefer a UK setup before I get lambasted (or maybe this will get me lambasted!!!)

No lambasting from me! I don't really care either way, but as I said originally, there are likely to be some changes whatever the result is.

 

[DownSouth]

It would probably be a good set up that makes it fair for the whole UK - allow all the regions (not just Scotland) to plan their own spending/raise their own money. Interestingly I think London would already like to be it's own independent city state given the chance!

An ideal reform for the UK, in my opinion, would have the House of Commons broken up to sit as regional assemblies at times, but also sitting together as a whole for ceremonial purposes and to debate national policy. These assemblies would each have the majority of MPs elected from traditional constituencies and a handful of top-up members elected to ensure proportionality in each region.

The House of Lords would be replaced by a Senate (but still being called the House of Lords for ceremonial purposes) with an equal number of Senators elected from each region by proportional representation. The Prime Minister and Cabinet would be elected from within the Senators, and the Senate would have the power to introduce Bills which would then be debated, amended and passed by the House of Commons before returning to the Senate to be passed again.

Read an interesting piece in the news a few weeks back that said it's widely recognised (worldwide) that in the lead up to referendums of these sort that as the date draws nearer people tell opinion polls they want change and whatever the change is sees a huge increase in popularity (as the "yes" camp have). But then come election day, the status quo wins and things stick as they were. I'm willing to bet my shoes and a shortbread biscuit that we see no change here and that after all this posturing, gesturing and arguing, Scotland remains in the UK.

Part of this is due to referenda actually having legal force in some nations where there is a Constitution. In Australia, for example, any change to the Constitution requires the Act to be fully drafted and passed by the Commonwealth Parliament before going to the people. When, for example, the topic of Western Australian secession comes up again (just like Scottish secession, it rolls around once a generation) if it ever gets taken seriously all the negotiations and plans will be drawn up before the referendum, and the referendum will be the final step in the decision.

In the UK there is no Constitution, just a bunch of conventions among which one of the most prominent of these conventions is Parliamentary Supremacy. If a referendum only has whatever force politicians are willing to give it afterwards (the application of Parliamentary Supremacy with respect to referenda) then it's not really a referendum as such, it's really a non-binding plebiscite that is only one step above an opinion poll.

Non-binding plebiscites are a good thing and do have their place. Going back to the hypothetical example of WA seceding from Australia, if it were ever to be taken seriously it would probably have a plebiscite to establish there was a clear case in favour before the engagement of a formal process leading towards Bills in the WA and Commonwealth Parliaments which would lead to a referendum.

This is probably a good thing for the case of the secession of Scotland if the idealistic fervour of the Yes vote gets up. The non-binding nature of the referendum (i.e. because the lack of a Constitution means anything written by a Parliament can be later repealed, including the Edinburgh Agreement) does leave the capacity for the Scottish leadership to back out (maybe by way of scheduling a second referendum to save face) if the more sober reflection on the implications that will come afterwards provokes the world's biggest case of buyer's remorse.

 

[JohnB57]

There was no currency union between Eire and the UK after 1928. Eire did not use Pound Sterling after 1928. The Irish used their own Punt which was pegged to GBP until 1978.

Modern day examples of currency pegging include some nations in the 'process (ERM II)' of joining the Euro, and a large number of countries in the Middle East and Africa usually pegged to the USD.

Former Taoiseach John Bruton said of the Irish Punt, "At that time, we had a situation where interest rate policy was determined in London without any Irish input, and we went up and down with the fortunes of whatever suited the British economy as decided by people in Britain"

That, if I may say so, is an extremely academic point.

The effect was the same as full currency union and in fact sterling currency was generally accepted in Ireland. In effect it was the same as Scotland issuing its own notes today and continuing to do so in the case of monetary union after independence.

 

[table38]

Someone in the "No" campaign thought it would be a good idea to raise the Saltire over Downing Street. Well, that went well then

[youtube]vQQRCJuwY2o[/youtube]

Maybe an omen...

 

[Flamingo]

In all seriousness, what is the chance of a Northern Ireland type scenario, where the hotheads on the losing side (or indeed both sides) decide the only way to get their own way / protect their "rights" is to go down the "Armed Struggle" route?

 

[21C101]

I think that the answer as to why the English seem less interested in English independence has already been touched on somewhere in this thread. For a lot of English people, the UK is England, and many of them find it difficult to differentiate between the UK, Britain (or whatever you want to call it) and their own country.

Speaking as someone whos grandfather was born in Scotland (so would qualify as a citizen) but otherwise has no day to day links.

Part of me feels "let them do what they want. I've had enough of the subsidies and moaning" (albeit of a noisy minority). Another part wonders whether the subsidies and moaning are a price worth paying for UK military being in control of the whole island, rather than a potentially hostile power being in control of the northern part of the Island; ie is Barnetts "Danegeld" worth it for the security (sorry if that is unflattering, but changing the destiny of countries is the most serious business you can be involved in, and cold hearted logic has to take precedence over sparing feelings)

I guess Eire being independent has not caused a problem so that indicates low risk, however if (hypothetically as they show no signs of doing so) Eire did start palling up with some hostile troublemakers, eg inviting the Chinese in to have airbases, then that could very easily result in war and invasion of them and all the associated nastinesses. Union eliminates the possibility of this (although in extremis risks insurgency)

The other thing I feel is that any final settlement should be conditional on separate referenda on both sides of the border both saying YES, as was the case with the anglo Irish agreement.

OTOH if they go I could get the scottish citizenship and send the kids to uni free north of the border so I'm not going to get despondent either way....

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Someone in the "No" campaign thought it would be a good idea to raise the Saltire over Downing Street. Well, that went well then

[youtube]vQQRCJuwY2o[/youtube]

Maybe an omen...

I can't be the only one who finds that cringeworthy, it makes the No campaign look even more incredibly desperate in light of the twists and turns of late. Now Ed, Dave, Nick, Nigel and Gordon are heading off North to salvage it; which wouldn't in all honesty surprise me if it just ended up consolidating Yes's position.

Interesting to see Ukip's stance of the EU being so evil and demanding out, then advocating Scotland stays in one where a lot of its residents will have the same sentiments about Westminster governments that Ukip voters do about Brussels ones...

 

[21C101]

In all seriousness, what is the chance of a Northern Ireland type scenario, where the hotheads on the losing side (or indeed both sides) decide the only way to get their own way / protect their "rights" is to go down the "Armed Struggle" route?

I would say very low, there are always hotheads, it is only where they latch onto a significant injustice that affects a large chunk of the communities daily life and that everyone else ignores that they get enough public support to cause trouble.

In the case of NI the abominable sectarian discrimination against Catholics which was little better than South African apartheid resulted in that public anger and support in the nationalist community.

Once that discrimination stopped after stormont was abolished in 1973, direct rule was imposed and reforms to stop the discrimination enacted, then the problem eventually went away; even though the causus belli (united Ireland outside UK) was not achieved, because public opinion no longer saw justification for achieving it through violence and were increasingly fed up with the hotheads.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, if there is a very close YES, there may be a strategy of delaying the split past the next Scottish election as treaty negotiations wont be done in time with the consequences (ie Scotland roundly shafted in the treaty & by the EU) very starkly obvious by the time of the next Scottish election and Scottish Labour campaigning on calling it off in favour of devo max if they win.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be the case. However, if there is any sort of mandate for independence coming out of the referendum, it would be politically very interesting to see what would happen in response.

I dont think that strategy would work unless the YES majority was wafer thin, the turnout rather low, or prima facie evidence of intimidation by YES supporters presented, with the perpetrators being hauled up before the courts. Sadly this latter scenario does not seem to be wholly improbable. Indeed, given some things I have recently read, it is not unthinkable that the result would not be set aside by the courts if very close and intimidation proven.

 

[Greenback]

I dont think that strategy would work unless the YES majority was wafer thin, the turnout rather low, or prima facie evidence of intimidation by YES supporters presented, with the perpetrators being hauled up before the courts. Sadly this latter scenario does not seem to be wholly improbable. Indeed, given some things I have recently read, it is not unthinkable that the result would not be set aside by the courts if very close and intimidation proven.

I agree. It would have to be a very close result for it to be an effective policy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

One thing that has completely escaped debate so far is partition. This could very easily occur in two ways.

1) British Sovereign Bases: Her Majesty's Naval Base, Clyde (Faslane) and a sizeable chunk of territory around it might be retained as a British Sovereign Base, just as happened in Cyprus, complete with nuclear subs and Salmond would be powerless to do anything about it.

2) East Ukraine equivalent. The lowlands/borders decide they want to remain part of the UK. Much of this area is still solid tory and may not want to leave.

I do think though that too much panic is resulting from one opinion poll. Mike Smithson's Politicalbetting site is the gold standard on this sort of thing and the following post on the subject is interesting. I reckon it is still 60-40 No, especially bearing mind many have already long voted in postal ballots. Smithson hasn't forgotten that opinion poll that put the liberals in the lead after the tv debates two weeks before the 2010 election.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...itical-earthquake-the-cleggasm-in-april-2010/

The MOD has categorically rejected suggestions that Faslane and Coulport would be an Akrotiri & Dhekelia or a Guantanamo Bay. There will be no dismemberment of Scotland, even if individual areas vote to stay.

I doubt the rUK will really have much of a voice on the issue, given their continued threats to leave the EU entirely, they don't have much power to negotiate with.

The default option for new countries is to have to sign up to open borders and so all that could be done by rUK is to propose a vote allowing an exemption.

As mentioned, it is certainly in the interests of other European countries not to have an exception in the UK and no reason for them to go easy on Scotland so I can't see it passing.

I imagine that if Scotland signed, the rUK would be compelled to sign (and thus probably ROI as well, who are only outside to ease ROI/NI cross-border movement). But far right parties and media are likely to make tremendous capital over this and there could be a strong backlash against Scotland if they are seen as forcing the rUK's hand.

A Yes vote alone is forcing the rUK's hand. Other European countries have an interest in ensuring the matter works as smoothly as possible because the genie is out of the bottle as soon as the chief counting officer reports that there were more Yes than No votes.

A large fence/earth wall with army patrolling it and searchlights/watchtowers will put a stop to that.

You are right that rUK will have little influence over the EU vis Scotland joining (they will have a veto but unlikely they would use it, however, Spain will and they will veto any entry for fear of encouraging basque and catalan separatists. Salmon cant get round the fact that existing EU members have a veto on new states joining.

The fundamental immediate problem for Scotland is that it receives far more from HM treasury than it pays in and this will cease overnight in 2016 if they vote YES at the same time as they face all the extra costs of running a separate state. If I were up there I would be tempted to vote YES for the same reason as I would vote UKIP down here - far better to run your own country, however badly, than have outsiders running it who you cannot depose, but I wouldn't be under any illusion about the hardships that will result in the next 20-30 years.

That border would be spectacularly difficult to build quickly and how would the rUK government justify spending money on it, given that all three parties roughly agree on the need for austerity? Such a border has not existed ever, so it would be rather difficult to implement one worth doing now.

I'm not sure what you're saying about NI ferries - passport checks within one state? However, this just emphasises the sense in maintaining the current travel area.

Yes, if the ROI unilaterally joined Schengen I would be almost certain that the UK Government would start doing identity checks on ferries and flights to Northern Ireland. From a UK Government perspective Northern Ireland is almost irrelevant; it's just an annoying place that tends to have another minor political crisis every few years but it serves little purpose for the goals of the UK.

That may be so but that does not mean that they have to cut the NHS though does it - in fact it very much says so in the link I provided- but again that is not what Salmond and the Yes people are saying though are they.

No, they are saying that Scottish NHS will suffer because of Westminster using private companies. Thats a lie when they have control over NSH Scotland spending.

Of course, they should also check their facts as it is apparent that they themselves have been using private companies for health care, the very thing they say they had eradicated LINK

It is completely true that the individual spending cuts cannot be dictated by Westminster but the point is that eventually, you're going to need to cut somewhere and there's little else the Scottish Parliament can realistically cut.

The big, big problem at the moment and under any proposed devolution settlement is that the costs of implementing social policies are borne by the Scottish Government but the economic gains from doing so remain down in the UK Treasury. Implementing good social policies may be cheaper for the government in the long term but in this system that benefit is never seen, which is clearly absurd.

To my mind there are two key considerations.

1)Who runs the country. Outsiders who you cannot depose however good they are or pepole you choose and can remove, however bad or good they are.

2) Are the hardships that will be endured over the next 20-30 years by choosing (1) worth it. And there will be severe hardships as they get used to a post barnett treasury plus the extra costs of running your own state and loss of cross subsidies that inevitably come from agglomeration, whatever the nats claim to the contrary.

To my mind the yes camp have had their heads in the sand trying to shout down anyone who points out (2) and are plain naive in thinking that countries like Spain will put Scotlands interests over Spains interest and not veto their entry into the EU, or at least extract a truly formidible price after a long delay such as join the euro and schenegan etc.

Finally, I think the Yes side have underestimated the ruthlessness with which the partition treaty will be negotiated by rUK. The UK government have played this with a very low profile but if there is a yes vote the gloves will be well and truly off. It will not be plasant to watch.

Indeed, if there is a very close YES, there may be a strategy of delaying the split past the next Scottish election as treaty negotiations wont be done in time with the consequences (ie Scotland roundly shafted in the treaty & by the EU) very starkly obvious by the time of the next Scottish election and Scottish Labour campaigning on calling it off in favour of devo max if they win.

Many significant european powers including Spain, France and Italy do not want this genie out of the box for selfish reasons. I speak not as someone intrinsically hostile to the idea but as a realist, sympathetic to the idea of national self determination, who knows that the UK will face similar issues and hardships to get out of the EU and restore our sovereignty.

As I said, genie is out of the bottle during the night of the 18th-19th September. Indeed, the genie probably went out the bottle when David Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement. Nothing Spain or France can do would do anything to stop their own separatist movements without destroying the European project of peace and democracy.

Also, if the UK Government is ruthless then we're not taking any of the debt. Even if our initial bond yields were worse than Greece we would be starting from absolutely nothing, so no need for any interest repayments whatsoever.

An ideal reform for the UK, in my opinion, would have the House of Commons broken up to sit as regional assemblies at times, but also sitting together as a whole for ceremonial purposes and to debate national policy. These assemblies would each have the majority of MPs elected from traditional constituencies and a handful of top-up members elected to ensure proportionality in each region.

The House of Lords would be replaced by a Senate (but still being called the House of Lords for ceremonial purposes) with an equal number of Senators elected from each region by proportional representation. The Prime Minister and Cabinet would be elected from within the Senators, and the Senate would have the power to introduce Bills which would then be debated, amended and passed by the House of Commons before returning to the Senate to be passed again.


Part of this is due to referenda actually having legal force in some nations where there is a Constitution. In Australia, for example, any change to the Constitution requires the Act to be fully drafted and passed by the Commonwealth Parliament before going to the people. When, for example, the topic of Western Australian secession comes up again (just like Scottish secession, it rolls around once a generation) if it ever gets taken seriously all the negotiations and plans will be drawn up before the referendum, and the referendum will be the final step in the decision.

In the UK there is no Constitution, just a bunch of conventions among which one of the most prominent of these conventions is Parliamentary Supremacy. If a referendum only has whatever force politicians are willing to give it afterwards (the application of Parliamentary Supremacy with respect to referenda) then it's not really a referendum as such, it's really a non-binding plebiscite that is only one step above an opinion poll.

Non-binding plebiscites are a good thing and do have their place. Going back to the hypothetical example of WA seceding from Australia, if it were ever to be taken seriously it would probably have a plebiscite to establish there was a clear case in favour before the engagement of a formal process leading towards Bills in the WA and Commonwealth Parliaments which would lead to a referendum.

This is probably a good thing for the case of the secession of Scotland if the idealistic fervour of the Yes vote gets up. The non-binding nature of the referendum (i.e. because the lack of a Constitution means anything written by a Parliament can be later repealed, including the Edinburgh Agreement) does leave the capacity for the Scottish leadership to back out (maybe by way of scheduling a second referendum to save face) if the more sober reflection on the implications that will come afterwards provokes the world's biggest case of buyer's remorse.

Parliamentary sovereignty is an English and Welsh concept, not a Scottish one. Parliament is more than capable of approving the permanent, irrevocable loss of its power over an area, as is more than exemplified by the enormous numbers of independent states created by UK Parliament bills.

In all seriousness, what is the chance of a Northern Ireland type scenario, where the hotheads on the losing side (or indeed both sides) decide the only way to get their own way / protect their "rights" is to go down the "Armed Struggle" route?

None. There are no weapons to use in Scotland and no one is interested in such a thing because this referendum is being fought on economics and politics rather than ethnicity or nationality.

 

[yorksrob]

The MOD has categorically rejected suggestions that Faslane and Coulport would be an Akrotiri & Dhekelia or a Guantanamo Bay. There will be no dismemberment of Scotland, even if individual areas vote to stay.

A Yes vote alone is forcing the rUK's hand. Other European countries have an interest in ensuring the matter works as smoothly as possible because the genie is out of the bottle as soon as the chief counting officer reports that there were more Yes than No votes.

Wishful thinking at its most optimistic.

The only genies out of any bottles are in the UK. No genies out of any other European bottles until Scotland has made a successful transition as a full member of the EU.

If you think Scotland has little influence over UK policy now, this will be so much less when the UK has no strategic interest in the place. The remainder of the UK will not have its hand forced on external relations.

That border would be spectacularly difficult to build quickly and how would the rUK government justify spending money on it, given that all three parties roughly agree on the need for austerity? Such a border has not existed ever, so it would be rather difficult to implement one worth doing now.

It's just a fence and a collection of public servants at crossings. I'd far rather there wasn't a border, but compared to being forced into adopting policies that the Country doesn't want, if it came to it I don't see how it would be any different from the border checks we have with France and Holland at the moment, particularly since in the event of separation, we wouldn't have any greater shared sense of citizenship and identity with Scotland than we have with those other countries.

 

[St Rollox]

In all seriousness, what is the chance of a Northern Ireland type scenario, where the hotheads on the losing side (or indeed both sides) decide the only way to get their own way / protect their "rights" is to go down the "Armed Struggle" route?

So far an egg or two has been thrown.
Scottish Police are rounding up "chicken fundamentalists" in all major urban areas.
The Port of Cairnryan has been closed.

 

[21C101]

Wishful thinking at its most optimistic.

The only genies out of any bottles are in the UK. No genies out of any other European bottles until Scotland has made a successful transition as a full member of the EU.

If you think Scotland has little influence over UK policy now, this will be so much less when the UK has no strategic interest in the place. The remainder of the UK will not have its hand forced on external relations.

Sadly agreed, the apparent naievity of nat policies is almost scary.

Taking his other points, just because the MOD say now they won't hang on to Faslane means absolutely nothing. It is the text of the treaty, and only that, that counts. If the UK government refuses to sign the treaty then there is no Scottish Independence, end of. Therefore the UK can pretty well dictate terms, including sovereign bases, the north sea of the scottish coast becoming part of England territory or for that matter a greater Berwick covering half the lowlands transferring to Northumberland if it felt like it and will be under heavy pressure from the public to get the best deal for rUK.

Debt. If they don't agree to their share in the treaty then no treaty and no independence. This referendum does not bind the UK to give them independence. rUK can also veto Scottish entry into EU if they cause problems post independence.

I suppose they can follow scottish descendent and Rhodesian PM Ian Smith and try UDI, that turned out well though didn't it!

I also suspect that the alleged intimidatory antics of certain hot headed fundamentlist nationalist elements are responsible for the current closeness of the polls, as people are, I suspect, now reluctant to admit they are voting no and will still do so (and have probably already done so in postal ballots before this poll even appeared). Knacker may well be busy after the election.

As I said, there is a seroius debate to be had, whether the long term benefits of statehood outweigh the inevitable significant short term (10-20yrs hardship), however sadly the nats seem to have pretended this is not the case. If that case had been honestly made they might have carried the day. Instead I think Salmond and his party will find themselves irreperably damaged after 19th September whatever the outcome.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So far an egg or two has been thrown.
Scottish Police are rounding up "chicken fundamentalists" in all major urban areas.
The Port of Cairnryan has been closed.

Sadly, it seems to be a bit more serious than that

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...m=93&ie=UTF-8#q=scotland+intimidation&tbm=nws

 

[St Rollox]

Pity i couldn't get some of the posts on here printed in the Scottish Press.
YES would win in a landslide.

 

[yorksrob]

Pity i couldn't get some of the posts on here printed in the Scottish Press.
YES would win in a landslide.

Expecting things to fall into place just because you want them to isn't how international relations works. Might not be a vote winner, but that's the world for you.

 

[DarloRich]

David Camoron going to Scotland in order to campaign for a no vote is akin to King Herod lecturing on early years care - it is a total open goal for the yes campaign!

 

[yorksrob]

David Camoron going to Scotland in order to campaign for a no vote is akin to King Herod lecturing on early years care - it is a total open goal for the yes campaign!

Doubtless the same for Sir John Major's “I told you so“ campaign.

 

[Butts]

I can't wait for the Independence 2014 or whatever they call the programme bringing the results throughout the night. (On the BBC of course !!)

As I am working nights I will be able to watch it from start to finish. With the outcome in doubt it will be far more exciting than a walkover for either camp. Somewhat reminiscent of the Welsh Assembly Yes/No vote that went to the wire.

My hope (sorry BBC Scotland) is that the "big guns" from London come up to Edinburgh - David Dimbleby and the rest of the gang.

 

[Greenback]

Even the Welsh leader has rushed to Scotland to urge people to vote No. Assuming they even know who he is, will that have any bearing at all? Will it make more people say they will be voting Yes?