Scotland votes no to Independence

[21C101]

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

They are hard realities but realities nonetheless that anyone with any knowledge of history, politics and diplomacy could point out. Realities, I suspect deliberately avoided by the no campaign as they would be counterproductive to air prior to a referendum when no was odds on to win from the start. Hence the reason for the lacklustre and tepid "no" campaign. They decided to basically just ignore the referendum and play "do not feed the troll".

In my opinion, with the polls looking a tad closer than expected they have all rushed north in an apparent panic bearing gifts, both to try and grab a few votes from people who are swayed by that sort of thing, and so that in the unlikely event of a YES win they can say afterwards "we did everything we could, we made very generous offers but you threw it in our face. Now we are into treaty negotiations we will fight very hard and ruthlessly for rUK interests." Anyone who imagines that this would not happen is in my opinion being naively optimistic.

As is anyone who thinks they really are panicing. Strategy would have been worked out covering all scenarios months ago with all sorts of "what if's" worked out and things like Camerons pleading Mail article :cry: written weeks or months ago to be released if necessary. I wouldn't be surprised if deliberate Pound dumping after the 51-49 poll wasnt being arranged too. Thinking its wicked British doing this is silly, its just standard realpolitik practiced by all powers and powerful when a lot is at stake and really no different in logistics to how railway tocs prepare and implement incident management strategies. We will face the same FUD when it comes to the referendum to leave the EU, only probably worse.

The only thing that really surprises me is that people think this sort of thing dosen't or won't happen. The only difference between the British establishment and other powers is that the British establishment have always been very good at it so subtly its almost un-noticed and taking political advantage of it (as Lloyd George and co did after they agreed to Irish partition after it dawned on them that the universal franchise introduced in 1918 would mean a permanent hung parliament with 80 or so nationalist Irish MPs holding the balance of power.)

My hypothetical money is still on No 60-40 though, the bookies are rarely wrong.

 

[90019]

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

I can't remember exactly where it was, but there was a block of flats fairly near me which had every window with a no poster in it smashed, while all the ones with yes posters were left.

 

[GarethJohn]

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?

What he's saying is ''If you want Welsh independence don't vote Labour'.'

 

[Greenback]

What he's saying is ''If you want Welsh independence don't vote Labour'.'

I'll be voting Plaid Cymru next time! I'm sick of bouncing between Labour and Conservative governments, even with the Lib Dems apparently in the mix somewhere as well.

But to stay on topic, is he going to have any effect in Scotland? Or will it be seen as more desperation? If I was Scottish I might see it as patronising!

 

[rf_ioliver]

I'll be voting Plaid Cymru next time! I'm sick of bouncing between Labour and Conservative governments, even with the Lib Dems apparently in the mix somewhere as well.

But to stay on topic, is he going to have any effect in Scotland? Or will it be seen as more desperation? If I was Scottish I might see it as patronising!

Morgan's position is interesting. If Scotland leaves (or even if they stay!) his position becomes more important as the leader of a devolved government. However bear in mind what happens to Labour overall if Scotland does leave. According to The Guardian, currently Labour would need a swing of 80 seats in England to gain power. Also the Welsh Labour party is answerable to the UK Labour leadership - I think this has much more bearing on the situation.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/-sp-if-scotland-votes-for-independence-key-questions

t.

Ian

 

[DelayRepay]

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

The BBC are having two programmes to cover this. One will be on BBC 1 Scotland and the other on BBC 1 in England, Wales and Northen Ireland. I'm not sure which presenters are doing which programme. I expect at least one of these programmes will also be on the News Channel so it can be viewed across the UK.

ITV are also having all night coverage - I didn't think ITV did "news" any more?!

 

[NotATrainspott]

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 ---


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

And that is complete and utter rubbish. The rUK is bound by the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement. It is as much part of the UK constitution as any other part now, and given that the referendum was authorised in the first place it means that Scotland would be more than justified to declare UDI if it needed to afterwards. Unlike Northern Ireland, which was explicitly given the opportunity to remain part of the UK as part of the Irish independence settlement, no such promise has been made now for parts of Scotland and there is no justification for any such clause to be introduced now simply because the polls will be much tighter than anyone had anticipated.

Realpolitik means that after a Yes vote, both parties will have no option but to work together to form the most mutually acceptable outcome possible as the alternative is a spiral of damage and distrust that would destroy both countries.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If the UK government refuses to sign the treaty then there is no Scottish Independence, end of.

I am not sure if that is true or not, but regardless, I really can't imagine the UK government risking the negative publicity and actions if they were to refuse Scottish Independence in the event of a Yes result. Can you imagine the outcry and the comparisons with third world dictatorships (or even Russia)? Cos I certainly can. If the people of Scotland vote yes in 8 days time, then they WILL become an independent country. How long that will take is up in the air, but the UK government will not stop them.

 

[Oswyntail]

....If I was Scottish I might see it as patronising!

The Scots are quite capable of seeing anything as patronising:roll:

 

[21C101]

And that is complete and utter rubbish. The rUK is bound by the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement. It is as much part of the UK constitution as any other part now, and given that the referendum was authorised in the first place it means that Scotland would be more than justified to declare UDI if it needed to afterwards. Unlike Northern Ireland, which was explicitly given the opportunity to remain part of the UK as part of the Irish independence settlement, no such promise has been made now for parts of Scotland and there is no justification for any such clause to be introduced now simply because the polls will be much tighter than anyone had anticipated.

No I am not talking rubbish. All the Edinburgh agreement covers is the mechanism and process for having the referendum. It arguably has no legal status anyway and does not cover what happens afterwards. As Scottish Constitutional Forums (http://www.scottishconstitutionalfu...-Legal-Status-of-the-Edinburgh-Agreement.aspx) note "Finally, and more provocatively, if Scotland were to vote yes and separation of Scotland from the UK were negotiated, a whole host of agreements between the UK and Scottish government would require to reached, and the difficulty of finding a binding legal form for those agreements would be likely to come to the fore". The accepted way of doing that is a treaty.

Realpolitik means that after a Yes vote, both parties will have no option but to work together to form the most mutually acceptable outcome possible as the alternative is a spiral of damage and distrust that would destroy both countries.

Realpolitik means that after a Yes vote rUK will get the best deal it can for the citizens of the rUK and will hold all the cards in treaty negotiations. With a population imbalance of 10-1 any spiral of distrust and resultant punitive measures will hurt Scotland far more and that puts rUK in pole position (unless they go ott with silly things like demanding major border changes in the border lowlands)

UDI would just result in a sealed border, no freedom of movement over it, sanctions, ruin and in extremis military intervention, just as it did with Rhodesia. UDI would also likely result in serious internal problems within Scotland given a 50-50 split, you need overwelming support amongst your own people to try that one and have any chance of succeeding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not sure if that is true or not, but regardless, I really can't imagine the UK government risking the negative publicity and actions if they were to refuse Scottish Independence in the event of a Yes result. Can you imagine the outcry and the comparisons with third world dictatorships (or even Russia)? Cos I certainly can. If the people of Scotland vote yes in 8 days time, then they WILL become an independent country. How long that will take is up in the air, but the UK government will not stop them.

No, ultimately they wont block it, but they can procrastinate, delay and obfusicate (all the while blaming unreasonable Scot nats) in order to get a treaty favourable to rUK just as they did in Ireland, resulting in partition and British sovereign bases (which were given up in the late 30's)

 

[St Rollox]

What is the latest betting on a YES win?
Think it was about 6/1 or more about a month ago.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

The Scots are quite capable of seeing anything as patronising:roll:

I see that as patronising.

 

[telstarbox]

What is the latest betting on a YES win?
Think it was about 6/1 or more about a month ago.

Shorter than 2/1 now, although the odds are distorted by a small number of large value bets on the 'No' side:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-independence-bookies-yes-campaign-indyref-no

 

[St Rollox]

I've yet to see a No campaigner.

 

[AM9]

No I am not talking rubbish. All the Edinburgh agreement covers is the mechanism and process for having the referendum. It arguably has no legal status anyway and does not cover what happens afterwards. As Scottish Constitutional Forums (http://www.scottishconstitutionalfu...-Legal-Status-of-the-Edinburgh-Agreement.aspx) note "Finally, and more provocatively, if Scotland were to vote yes and separation of Scotland from the UK were negotiated, a whole host of agreements between the UK and Scottish government would require to reached, and the difficulty of finding a binding legal form for those agreements would be likely to come to the fore". The accepted way of doing that is a treaty.




Realpolitik means that after a Yes vote rUK will get the best deal it can for the citizens of the rUK and will hold all the cards in treaty negotiations. With a population imbalance of 10-1 any spiral of distrust and resultant punitive measures will hurt Scotland far more and that puts rUK in pole position (unless they go ott with silly things like demanding major border changes in the border lowlands)

UDI would just result in a sealed border, no freedom of movement over it, sanctions, ruin and in extremis military intervention, just as it did with Rhodesia. UDI would also likely result in serious internal problems within Scotland given a 50-50 split, you need overwelming support amongst your own people to try that one and have any chance of succeeding.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, ultimately they wont block it, but they can procrastinate, delay and obfusicate (all the while blaming unreasonable Scot nats) in order to get a treaty favourable to rUK just as they did in Ireland, resulting in partition and British sovereign bases (which were given up in the late 30's)

And you can bet that all parties canvassing in next year's general election will have a particular set of objectives in the settlement. Each of their presentations would be aimed at maximising their number of seats, (presumably concentrating on English ones), so it's unlikely that the current government would proceed with anything other than a hard sell. UKIP, (to be rUKIP or even EIP) would have a field day if the government was seen to be reasonable. Candidates may also canvass that as this referendum is to measure Scotland voter's aspirations, then there should be a rUK referendum on the settlement, as that would affect them just as much - where would that go?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I've yet to see a No campaigner.

Indeed: I've spent 11 of the last 23 days across Scotland, and can count the amount of No literature, placards and campaigners I've seen on one hand. In the same time period I must have seen nearing 100 Yes equivalents, including dedicated shops and Inverness high street having one literally from every lamppost.

 

[table38]

I've yet to see a No campaigner.

Does anyone know what a "No" vote actually means this week?

Originally it was "No Change" but once "No" was no longer a certainty, we've seen the Westminster leaders desperately start to move the goalposts so that a "No" vote might mean a vote for extra devolution, an option that was deliberately left off the originally ballot paper.

Which is also a bit of a kick in the nuts for anyone who has already voted by post!

 

[Domh245]

I'm fairly certain that the ballot paper is supposed to say "Should Scotland be an independent country" - So if you vote no, you aren't saying that you want no change at all, you are just saying that Scotland should not be an independent country - and seeing as that wording has been fixed for a while now, there can't have been any goalpost moving. Similarly it was also supposed to be a yes/no question, not a yes/no/"actually, I want to stay but on the following conditions"/&c. I suspect the reason for Westminster's sudden urge to send more powers to Holyrood might be to do with the fact that it is so close, not necessarily to swing votes, but to recognise that clearly a lot of Scottish people would like more independence. But that is my view and as a pro-union Southerner, I suspect I am taking what some might deem a pro-westminster view...

 

[Liam]

I'm annoyed that the goalposts seem to be moving, after I (and hundreds of thousands of others) have already voted by post.

 

[table38]

...there can't have been any goalpost moving.

The point I am making is that all the extra powers announced by Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling have only been made this week. Seems a bit of an odd coincidence that this was suddenly announced once the vote was getting to 50:50, given they have had years to think about this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11082259/Scottish-independence-Detailed-timetable-for-devolution-revealed-by-Gordon-Brown.html

Specific timetable for devolving new powers to the Scottish Parliament after a No vote has been announced by the former Labour prime minister

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11081994/Alistair-Darling-timetable-of-extra-powers-for-Scotland-on-its-way.html

Leader of the Better Together campaign, Alistair Darling, says there will soon be a formal agreement between the non-nationalist parties about a range of powers for Scotland

 

[21C101]

Indeed: I've spent 11 of the last 23 days across Scotland, and can count the amount of No literature, placards and campaigners I've seen on one hand. In the same time period I must have seen nearing 100 Yes equivalents, including dedicated shops and Inverness high street having one literally from every lamppost.

Given what a poster stated earlier (quoted below), I'm not entirely surprised.

I can't remember exactly where it was, but there was a block of flats fairly near me which had every window with a no poster in it smashed, while all the ones with yes posters were left.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The point I am making is that all the extra powers announced by Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling have only been made this week. Seems a bit of an odd coincidence that this was suddenly announced once the vote was getting to 50:50, given they have had years to think about this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11082259/Scottish-independence-Detailed-timetable-for-devolution-revealed-by-Gordon-Brown.html



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11081994/Alistair-Darling-timetable-of-extra-powers-for-Scotland-on-its-way.html

They were obviously planned all along for release at the most appropriate moment.

 

[table38]

They were obviously planned all along for release at the most appropriate moment.

So a cynic might infer that, if the polls were still showing a 60:40 "No" result, there'd have been no announcement and Scotland wouldn't be getting any extra powers

 

[Oswyntail]

Surely "Devo Max" was mooted very early, while the possibility of a referendum was being discussed. Of course, the Yes campaign refused to allow it to be a part of the referendum package, as it would presumably have weakened their "case".

 

[yorksrob]

Surely "Devo Max" was mooted very early, while the possibility of a referendum was being discussed. Of course, the Yes campaign refused to allow it to be a part of the referendum package, as it would presumably have weakened their "case".

Actually, I believe it was Cameron who turned down the option of devo max on the ballot. A massive strategic error by the looks of things.

 

[St Rollox]

A 100 Labour MPs ordered to Scotland on Thursday to placate the natives.

 

[Hornet]

Actually, I believe it was Cameron who turned down the option of devo max on the ballot. A massive strategic error by the looks of things.

Was it? The Tories will benefit from Scotland becoming Independent. No stroppy Scottish Labour MP's or SNP MP's to stop them pushing through their agenda in an English/Wales/NI Parliament. They would have a natural built in majority for many years to come. Labour would be badly wounded and the Lib Dems would most likely be torn apart.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just seven more days of the TV companies ramming this down our throats...

 

[90sWereBetter]

So the latest YouGov poll puts the "No" side back ahead, 52-48.

 

[Abpj17]

So the latest YouGov poll puts the "No" side back ahead, 52-48.

Polls are usually +/- 3% so it could be anything; YouGov sometimes use +/- 2%

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/11/21/understanding-margin-error/

 

[yorksrob]

Was it? The Tories will benefit from Scotland becoming Independent. No stroppy Scottish Labour MP's or SNP MP's to stop them pushing through their agenda in an English/Wales/NI Parliament. They would have a natural built in majority for many years to come. Labour would be badly wounded and the Lib Dems would most likely be torn apart.

I see where you're coming from, but yes, it was.

I suspect Cameron felt that the devo max option might prove too popular and fancied his chances of re-enforcing the status quo by offering only the scary and unknown full independence option as an alternative.

Similar to Prime Minister Howard's referendum on the monarchy in Australia. Offer the less popular non-elected president option as the only alternative and the Aussies opted for the status quo. However, the Scots look more like calling Mr Cameron's bluff !