Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Yodhrin wrote:


"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.

I'm not really making any comments on which polls are correct or incorrect. But if the official position of the leader of the 'Yes' campaign is casting himself as the 'underdog', one just begins to wonder slightly exactly how popular his opinion actually is. Polls always have a slight tilt in favour of change in just about any given scenario (as those who take part tend to be politically active, and it therefore doesn't take into account the natural disinclination of the voters to change the status quo). As such, if the polls are generally suggesting (and most of the ones I've seen do) the table tilted in favour of no, I'm expecting to see something along the lines of a 65-70% vote in favour of 'No'.

That would be my current forecast at least. We'll have to see how things progress.

As for putting the issue to bed, that's an optimistic view of things. The SNP might not be planning to publicly advocating another referendum for a decade or two if there's a No vote this time around, but whatever the picture painted in certain parts of the media of Emperor Alex Salmond and his SNP generals marching at the head of their Cybernat army, they lost control of the Yes campaign a long time ago, and if Unionists believe Radical Independence, Green Yes, Scottish CND, and the hundreds of local autonomous groups across the country are just going to vanish into the ether after a No, and that they won't start getting support from amongst the general public when we get Tories in 2015(which we will),

Just to interrupt in mid-flow, there's a high chance of a Lib/Lab coalition majority in the next round of elections. Thanks to New Labour's previous gerrymandering and the refusal of the Lib Dems to co-operate in undoing the effects, it's actually quite difficult for the Conservatives to get an outright majority these days.

If Brown hadn't been so inflexible and certain that Clegg would jump into bed with him without any compromises on his part, it could have happened last election already. I have a feeling that the Lib Dems won't be so quick to go Tory this time, because the Tories refused to undemocratically push through increases in Lib Dem political power (AV & House of Lords). Miliband also strikes me as more flexible (or spineless, depending on your take) than Brown was.

He also, unfortunately, strikes me as a political opportunist with little skill. He's finished if the Lib Dems don't prop him up this time around, as there's little chance of a Labour majority. I think the man would be disastrous for the country. I don't regard Cameron as that much better (ex-spin doctor anyone?), but he's demonstrated a basic level of competence if not excellence thus far.

followed by years of austerity(which we'd get even if Labour win in 2015 by their own admission),

The economy seems to be doing alright. I won't pretend to be an economist, and for a time, was won around by sebster's listing of economic reasons as to why austerity was bad. After some discussion with an academic on Keynesian economics though, I now also understand why Keynesian economics doesn't necessarily apply so much any more to our economy, so I'm torn as to whether austerity is a good or bad thing. The one thing I do know for sure is that whilst probably better educated than the average punter on the whole thing by now, I still don't really have much of a right to an opinion on the subject (or at least, one worth listening to).

years of dithering and equivocating over the already weak "more powers" offers(which is inevitable considering prevailing attitudes among English MPs towards further devolution, even token further devolution), further erosion of Scottish representation at Westminster(another inevitability if we stay in, whether it takes the form of fewer Scottish MPs or limiting their voting rights on "English-only issues")

Do you regard an inability to Scottish MP's to vote on domestic English affairs as being unfair, despite the reverse being true? If so, I'd be genuinely curious to hear a reasoned argument as to why.

I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.

This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Rick, I appreciate that while you're disagreeing with me, you're doing so (mostly)politely and laying out your position thoroughly. I hope you won't consider my continuing to argue the points you raise as an attack on yourself.

Aye, you crack on, I just like a debate. Neither of us will change our minds, its the 14% left that will make any difference.

I have to say my mind has been somewhat towards the "Yes" position by this thread, however living in England I don't have a vote anyway.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


"Using" and "acknowledging in the media" are hardly the same. Both Yes and Better Together are, as I said, using the public opinion polling as part of their rhetoric, but they'll be relying on their own private polling numbers to direct their campaign strategies. The poll in that article, incidentally, is the YouGov one mentioned above, the two polls I mentioned are just out today and show the Yes campaign within margin of error and two points up, which merely underlines my point - some or all of the polling is wrong, for whatever reasons, and we won't know which until the day after.

I'm not really making any comments on which polls are correct or incorrect.

I don't think there has been a single worthwhile poll (Some people keep quoting a handful of unscientific on line polls by a pro independence news paper that had zero control over who was voting and were so bias in the voting group) that shows No to be ahead. The latest YouGov poll puts No ahead. Yes seem to have made some ground last week, but it has been swinging back and forth for months by 2-3%.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/scotland
http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/

Polls have consistently showed about 35 for yes. It has been this way for years.

I personally think we will see a No vote, but to be honest, polls are useful to political groups to tell them if they are doing the right thing, but for debating the subject it is pointless. What does it matter who is in the lead or not. It is not a useful fact at all.

 Ketara wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

I don't think even Westminster would be so crass and cack-handed as to try abolishing the Scottish Parliament outright, but folk do have to remember that thanks to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, no single aspect of devolution is out of their reach, so given Labour's resent mumblings about "'devolving' power out from Holyrood to councils"(which sounds lovely, until you recognise that it's a transparent attempt to undermine the SNP and hand more powers to the level of government at which Labour still wield considerable authority, and will be unaccompanied by the kind of reform of local governance needed to make the policy benefit the public rather than Labour gravy-train passengers), I wouldn't put it past the UK to try undermining the existing devolution settlement in more subtle ways.

This is the first I've heard of this, but it would not surprise me. Labour has a long history of attempting to rig politics in their favour recently (see the above comment on gerrymandering), and it would be a logical thing to do to attempt to regain ground from the SNP. Influence-rigging aside, devolving more power to local councils could be a good thing, but I'd need to see data/arguments from both sides before committing to be honest. I would be wary though about associating the 'Labour Gravy Train' as you so succinctly put it, with 'the UK'. I can accept that it would be a legitimate fear about a future Labour administration, but I don't think it's really quite fair to pin that on the rest of us.

You probably haven't heard anything about it as is has nothing to do with Scottish independence. As usual the "Yes" side are trying to paint anything to do with Westminster as "The big bad evil trying to destroy us". It is, in fact, a stated Labour policy to try and devolve powers across the UK to local government as much as possible to reduce the centralized power of Westminster and introduce more localisms in to politics. If this is a good idea or not is a different matter, but it has nothing to do with undermining Scotland or Scottish devolution. Apparently, however, the SNP are happy to have power devolved and let people have control over there own destiny and how they are governed, as long as it stops at Holyrood.

 Steve steveson wrote:


You probably haven't heard anything about it as is has nothing to do with Scottish independence. As usual the "Yes" side are trying to paint anything to do with Westminster as "The big bad evil trying to destroy us". It is, in fact, a stated Labour policy to try and devolve powers across the UK to local government as much as possible to reduce the centralized power of Westminster and introduce more localisms in to politics. If this is a good idea or not is a different matter, but it has nothing to do with undermining Scotland or Scottish devolution. Apparently, however, the SNP are happy to have power devolved and let people have control over there own destiny and how they are governed, as long as it stops at Holyrood.

The new policy is based on the IPPR report Condition of Britain launched in June this year. The revolution is illusory, as it devolves culpability and authority but not funding, its actually very Orwellian means of centralising power by giving the illusion of the opposite, which is why only Labour proposes it. It can also set up select local authorities to fail or boost visible success of others as fits party policy.
Holyrood is very similar only more so, funding and actual de facto control is extremely centralised, and look to be getting even more so.

It's not like the Conservatives have a good record of decentralising power either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's not like the Conservatives have a good record of decentralising power either.

Its fairer to say they want things as they are. Lib and Con are happy for the local authorities to have their spheres of control, New Labour actively takes those away, selectively while installing illusory decentralisation, good example of this was the elcted mayors rolled in during the first Blair term in a lot of towns. Sure we have an extra layers of elections at a local level, but it produces only a gravy train not any meaningful decentralisation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!

You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!

We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!

What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it

It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.

I have to travel to Scotland a fair bit for my job, am I going to need a passport for that trip in future? The whole thing just seems fething ridiculous, and just a bunch of people in power there wanting more power (which is what this is about for Salmon and co.) rather than any genuine desire to benefit the Scottish people. Incidentally, none of the Scots I work with are going to vote yes because I think they recognise it for what it is. But, getting 16 year-olds to vote (who will vote with their heart rather than their head), and no doubt some attempts to drum up nationalism through repeat showings of Mel Gibson as Braveheart and you can quite easily swing it to the yes vote.

I work for a rather large energy company. I've heard that the break of the union (if it happens) will cost the company getting on for a billion pounds in realisation of pension funds. Feth knows how they are going to organise the power grid and payment moving backwards and forth, the entire thing is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare and is just going to cost both sides mountains of money. Several large companies have already started buying offices south of the border and will be moving the moment the yes vote is returned, and from what I've read from economists comments on the subject (I'm not an expert on this myself, and therefore have to base my views on this subject on those comments) are that the moment independence happens the banks based in Scotland will default. British (or rather English, Welsh & Northern Irish) taxpayer money will then have to be used to help them. So in this sense maybe the whole of the UK should get to vote for this as we ultimately we are all going to be paying for it.

It's more than 300 years since the act of Union, and the two countries are so incredibly entwined, not just in terms of industry and economy but I think also culturally as well. Separation is going to be like untangling a 3 metre wide ball of wool that has been locked in a room with 50 kittens, and when the scissors come out it's going to result in a lot of tears.

There's no plan to default. There will be a currency union.

All I can say is that I've heard that claims of businesses moving their offices as over exaggerated.

The UK is poised to exit the EU. If anything having a base in Scotland would be good for future business.

The political spectrum in Scotland is completely different than the rest of the UK. We've got a chance to rid ourselves of the House of Lords and Westminster that would smash down the Scottish Parliament when they are given the chance. Borris doesn't want to give us extra powers and we all know UKIP isn't the Scottish Parliaments biggest fan.

It's now or never for Scotland.

Some people call for solidarity among the working classes but I'm sorry, these people have had 30 years to build themselves back up after Maggie neutered them. Labour were in power for 13 continous years during that time. This groundwork shouldn't be getting started now. It's also too late to offer Devo-Max options now. Westminster already spat in the face of Scotland in that regard. This debate has been very telling. Scotland is the benefit scrounging, heroin addict, burden of the UK. Allowed to suffer an existence at the expense of the rest of the UK.

Labour is not the answer. They've already introduced rot into the NHS, the pillar of modern Britain. Watch as that crumbles over the next few years.

A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.

I have been drinking. Typical Scot, eh?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have been drinking. Typical Scot, eh?

It shows.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!

You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!

We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!

What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it

It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.

England attacked Scotland in the 13th century and briefly occupied the country but got kicked out pretty soon.

After the death of Elizabeth the First (1603) the next in line to the English throne happened to be the King of Scotland. He became King James 1 of England and James 6 of Scotland however there were still two separate parliaments and separate legal systems.

James's grandson James, brother of Charles II, was kicked out by the English in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for being Catholic, and replaced by WilliamandMary from Holland. (Mary was English.) James went to live in exile in France, and his descendants were used by the French for invading Britain in the 18th century.

The Darien colonisation scheme in the 1690s essentially bankrupted Scotland and was an important factor in bringing about the union.

The two countries were unified by the Acts of Union in 1707, by which the Scottish parliament dissolved itself and the Westminster parliament assumed government of the whole island.

Relations between England and Scotland were worsened by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 by supported of the exiled Stuart royal family (remember this family had been legitimate rulers of Scotland) against the Hanoverian monarchy imported to replace Queen Anne, daughter of WilliamandMary, who died without children.

Repression of these rebellions caused a lot of the historical bad feeling.

 Medium of Death wrote:
There's no plan to default. There will be a currency union.

But there won't. Scotland may unilaterally decide to use the pound, which it can do. It could also use the dollar, the euro , the bitcoin or the Yap Rai stone if they can get hold of enough. But there will not be a currency union, no matter how much the Yes camp want it.

Why am I so sure? First, because it would be politically disastrous, any party agreeing to a currency union would be torn o bits, both by the media and in the polls. Secondly, it would be economically disastrous for both sides. The Yes camp keep going on about how economically different Scotland is to the rest of the UK, so they would want a different economic policy, damaging both sides as there is either argument, disparity or compromise. The uncertainty would also be devastating for both sides as the markets would not know what was going to happen and if it is going to last.

 Medium of Death wrote:

A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.

I think this sums up everything that the Yes camp is saying. The grass will be greener, England is rubbish, Scotland is brilliant, just held back, and we will fix all of the problems! The Yes camp sound just like every party in opposition in Westminster. Full of vague promises about how they would do things better, nebulous criticism and few real facts witch all dissolves when faced with the reality of life and politics. Unfortunately this is far to important a choice to waste on politics of personality and dreams as you can't simply vote them out again in a few years. This needs facts on how things are going to be funded, what things will be like and what the options and back up plans are if things don't go to plan, which the Yes camp simply have failed to give.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I have been drinking. Typical Scot, eh?

It shows.

Sorry, Mum.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
There's no plan to default. There will be a currency union.

But there won't. Scotland may unilaterally decide to use the pound, which it can do. It could also use the dollar, the euro , the bitcoin or the Yap Rai stone if they can get hold of enough. But there will not be a currency union, no matter how much the Yes camp want it.

Why am I so sure? First, because it would be politically disastrous, any party agreeing to a currency union would be torn o bits, both by the media and in the polls. Secondly, it would be economically disastrous for both sides. The Yes camp keep going on about how economically different Scotland is to the rest of the UK, so they would want a different economic policy, damaging both sides as there is either argument, disparity or compromise. The uncertainty would also be devastating for both sides as the markets would not know what was going to happen and if it is going to last.

 Medium of Death wrote:

A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.

I think this sums up everything that the Yes camp is saying. The grass will be greener, England is rubbish, Scotland is brilliant, just held back, and we will fix all of the problems! The Yes camp sound just like every party in opposition in Westminster. Full of vague promises about how they would do things better, nebulous criticism and few real facts witch all dissolves when faced with the reality of life and politics. Unfortunately this is far to important a choice to waste on politics of personality and dreams as you can't simply vote them out again in a few years. This needs facts on how things are going to be funded, what things will be like and what the options and back up plans are if things don't go to plan, which the Yes camp simply have failed to give.

Yodhrin has made various long and eloquent points in this thread that explain the position much better than myself.

What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises. There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.

Nobody is under the impression that we'll wake up in a Utopia the following day after a Yes vote. It'll be hard to get what we want from Scotland. Retaining the NHS is a safe bet, certainly more so than if we stay in the Union. The point is we'll get to make those decisions. Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country. When I'm saying "look North and wonder where it all went wrong" I'm meaning for you folks down South will perhaps see a reinvigorated Scottish political sphere and that'll get people thinking in the rest of the UK. Maybe get rid of the house of lords and start to shake up the stagnant political system a little bit.

 Medium of Death wrote:

What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.

They have shown what the union brings. Global influence, stability, power within the EU, access to global financial markets through the London Stock Exchange, low interest rates, shared risk. All of the things the UK currently has. By leaving there is a very real risk of Scotland not having any of these things. What many people in the Yes side seem to want is some statement saying how Scotland will get more if it stays part of the union. That is not fear mongering, just statement of what is being walked away from.

This is fear mongering:

There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.

Yes, there may not be more powers, that is part of the point. The No campaign cannot have "more powers" as a bribe to Scotland. That would be wrong. Any further devolution should be looked at as part of a full view as to what is best for the country as a whole. However, the removal of the Scottish Parliament? That is in no way a real risk. In theory possible, but like many things that are in theory possible, like the dissolution of the crown, it is not going to happen, at least not in our life time, and not without the agreement of the Scottish electorate.

Nobody is under the impression that we'll wake up in a Utopia the following day after a Yes vote. It'll be hard to get what we want from Scotland. Retaining the NHS is a safe bet, certainly more so than if we stay in the Union.

The NHS is not going anywhere in the UK. Funding is a political football, but the NHS will still exist. If Scotland becomes independent funding will become the same political football, just because it is a big cost. Anyone who says otherwise is talking nonsense and been listening to too many right wing think tanks and Labour/Union opposition rhetoric.

The point is we'll get to make those decisions. Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country.

Scotland will have more difficulty having its voice heard in the EU on it's own than as part of the UK. It will become another small country among many. At the moment it is part of the big old guard of the EU with real power. Ireland does not get it's voice heard in the EU at the moment and Scotland on it's own will be the same, and without Scotland the UKs voice will be lessened in the EU. As with many things it will be damaging to both sides.

One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-

-The No party does want to concede that there is a possibility of a Yes vote because it damages their position &
-The Yes party does want to discuss it, because they have absolutely no official negotiation power over the process/final terms of dissolution, and the odds are that the final settlement will be far less advantageous then they're painting it to be. If people started working that into the voting equation, it would probably hit their ability to gain votes quite severely.

The whole currency issue is the first thing of that nature that's actually hit the headlines, but it's far from the only thing. Points of negotiation that would have to be considered:-

-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)

-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so). Just to illustrate for a moment:-



Most of the southern half of Scotland votes Conservative/Labour. If these areas wish to stay British, and strongly (say, 65% plus), there's absolutely no way that Parliament will cede them to the new state of Scotland. And if Scotland loses a third of its landmass, what does that do to their predictions about the economy? Most of the remaining non oil related Scottish industry and population is based in those areas.

-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?

-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?

-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.

Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.

-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.

These are just a few of the issues. There are far, far more, but absolutely no-one in either side wants to discuss them. Which I find more than a little vexing, as I believe it really would affect people's opinions on the issue.

 Medium of Death wrote:

What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.

To me this 'fear mongering' seems merely be pointing out the massive risks, and SNP's utter lack of preparation for them, that this independence project involves. As for what Scotland gets from the union, it should be obvious, you got it pretty good. People are always discontent with what they have, and promising them that things could be even better, is a great way to sell things, even if it wasn't true.

There's also the threat of no further powers and even the potential for our Parliament to be removed. It might be a distant possibility but it is a very real one none the less.

That is completely theoretical. No party would dare to demolish the devolution. It would be a gigantic boost to the independence movement, there would be a revolt.

Scottish voices will be heard in the EU with regard to what's best for our country.

In theory, but not so much in reality. To people in UK their impression of how international organisations work is based on UK's interactions with them. Bot you and Salmond seems to think that independent Scotland could interact with these organisations like UK can. This is a huge fallacy. Influence that a tiny nation of 5 million has is rather miniscule, it cannot be compared to the influence that a great power like UK has.

Ultimately, if Scottish people feel that they should have an independent nations, then it is absolutely right that they get it. But I am afraid that the idea is marketed to them with false promises, and this is not a thing they can later change their mind on if it turns out that the things were not quite so great as advertised.

Well whatever influence the "old guard has" is pretty irrelevant once the UK exits the EU isn't it?

The NHS will exist, as an almost entirely private entity that will completely hollow out what it's original purpose was.

It's not fear mongering to suggest that we'll get no more powers. Better together are claiming to deliver that but only if you vote for Labour at the next general election. Ha on that one. We've already lost powers through the actions of the House of Lords. It can and probably will happen again.

All the questions have been answered, the currency union is a non starter and the only real focus Better Together has. It's not even a major point of confusion if you read the white paper, there are other options, but it's the last thing they'll claw at and shout about. Although they shouldn't shout too loudly because Darling and even Osborne have been in favour of it in the past.

This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.

 Ketara wrote:
One thing I've not seen put up by either side as of yet is what will happen if we get a 'yes' vote. There's been no discussion on precisely how we would proceed from that point to Scottish independence, how long it would take, and what the major points would be. I'd wager this is for two good reasons:-

There has been a date and a road map. Its sometime next year, March 2015 I think, and the details of the negotiations and split are a little vague, but there is structures and processes in place as far as I am aware. It is all a little boring though.

-Who pays for the new state apparatus in Scotland? Regardless of the estimated cost, does it fall upon the British taxpayer as a whole (aka, why should I pay for that lot up North to do their own thing) versus Scotland taking out a loan to be repaid at a later date (aka, I pay my taxes already, why shouldn't the Union which takes them pay?)

The costs for the new state will fall to Scotland. The costs for any changes in the UK will fall to the UK. Basically countries will pick up there own tab. Scotland would probably have to borrow, where from would be a difficult question and is reliant on the currency issue.

-Where are the eventual borders going to be settled? Salmond's stated something about historical borders, but obviously if a large number of the Southern Constituencies want to remain British, Britain has no obligation to turn them over to a new Scotland (and it would be highly undemocratic to do so).

The borders are almost universally accepted as being along the current border, which is well defined because of the different legal systems.

-Will everyone in Scotland be offered dual passports/citizenship? Conversely, can anyone in Britain claim a Scottish passport? If not, and people in say, Wales can't claim a Scottish passport, why should people in Scotland be entitled to claim a British passport?

Yes, they should be, being born in the UK would entitle them to UK citizenship. Scottish citizenship is a little more complex, but it looks like there will probably be a requirement to either be resident or by birth/heritage as with any other passport.

-What will happen with the Armed Forces? There's no way that the Ministry of Defence would agree to a divide in its capabilities, and start parcelling out warships and equipment. Will Scottish regiments be retired?

This is one of the big questions that is still not answered. Most probably at the moment Scottish regiments and there equipment will become Scottish. The bigh budget stuff, like ships, is a bit more complex. I doubt Scotland would want the big stuff, but how the value is split is part of the detail of negotiations. Mid sized stuff like tanks and smaller ships is also a complex issue.

-What happens to warship contracts placed within Scotland? The Admiralty has a very long history of only permitting British shipbuilders to work on British warships. The odds are huge that even if they permit the contract just placed for patrol boats (and that's a big if) to be completed in Scotland, all subsequent work will be diverted to Portsmouth and Barrow.

Salmond says the Admiralty would choose to keep building in Scotland, but frankly, as a naval historian, I can say with very little (well, non-existent) doubt that this would not be the case. And with Ferguson's, Scotland's last remaining commercial shipbuilder going under, Navy contracts are the only thing keeping shipbuilding in Scotland going.

Ye, another issue. Salmond making promises he can't keep. The UK has many dockyards and one of the reasons these contracts went to Scottish ones was political, about spreading government spending around the UK. If Scotland is no longer part of the UK the government will try and get out of current contracts and not place any more. Yes will call this fear mongering and bullying, but it is simple political fact that you don't let another government build your warships.

-What sort of timeframe are we working on? Will it take five years? Ten? Parliament will be the ones to commission the appropriate enquiries and will ultimately take the vote to dissolve the Union (the SNP and Holyrood have no jurisdiction in these matters). What if the House of Lords blocks it repeatedly? That could stretch it out for years. And if it takes six years to make it through both chambers, and then another four to commission the appropriate data and make plans, we could be looking at a fifteen year process before everything is done and dusted.

As far as I am aware the legislation is already in place, there should be no blocking by anyone and independence will happen quite quickly. Wether all of the details on things like the issues you have outlined are hammered out at that point, I don't know, but everything should be in place. Ultimately it will be damaging for the UK to have it hanging around for too long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Well whatever influence the "old guard has" is pretty irrelevant once the UK exits the EU isn't it?

IF. There is no garentee that we will, any more than there is that Scotland will vote Yes.

The NHS will exist, as an almost entirely private entity that will completely hollow out what it's original purpose was.

Realy? You have no proof of that at all. The NHS has some problems, but what you are saying just won't happen. As always the NHS swings back and forwards with more and less private companies involved, but it will not end up as "an almost entirely private entity". It's just not going to happen, and no one seems to have any actual evidence that it will. The government had these big ideas at the start of their term about more private investment, but have quickly gone quiet as they realized that it would not work and would be political suicide to make too many changes.

It's not fear mongering to suggest that we'll get no more powers.

No, but it is fear mongering to suggest you will lose the Scottish Parliament.

All the questions have been answered, the currency union is a non starter and the only real focus Better Together has. It's not even a major point of confusion if you read the white paper, there are other options,

And yet Salmond could not come up with any of them when asked, and no one has been able to give a realistic answer. There are many issues, but this is a major one.

This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.

And I think Scotland and the UK as a whole will be worse off separate. Less stable, less powerful and less successful.

 Medium of Death wrote:
This vote is the right to have self determination for Scotland by people living in Scotland. We'll suffer our own problems but we can't be worse off on our own than we would be under Westminster.

That does not sound like a good starting assumption for a reasonable debate to me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I support freedom and the fracturing of as many European powers as possible, let's get the Catalans and Basques free their various overlords as well!

You're one of the few Americans on this site that actually acts like an American and encourages countries to break away from Britain!

We've had Obama and various Senators/Congressmen urge Scotland to vote no, and now we've got the Australian PM urging Scots to vote no, calling independence supporters enemies of freedom and justice!

What is it with former British colonies being reluctant to encourage another country to break away from Britain. I don't get it

It was my understanding that Scotland wasn't a colony of England but rather Scotland and England joined together in some sort of "United Kingdom" brought on by Scotland's disastrous attempt to colonize the new world.

England attacked Scotland in the 13th century and briefly occupied the country but got kicked out pretty soon.

After the death of Elizabeth the First (1603) the next in line to the English throne happened to be the King of Scotland. He became King James 1 of England and James 6 of Scotland however there were still two separate parliaments and separate legal systems.

James's grandson James, brother of Charles II, was kicked out by the English in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for being Catholic, and replaced by WilliamandMary from Holland. (Mary was English.) James went to live in exile in France, and his descendants were used by the French for invading Britain in the 18th century.

The Darien colonisation scheme in the 1690s essentially bankrupted Scotland and was an important factor in bringing about the union.

The two countries were unified by the Acts of Union in 1707, by which the Scottish parliament dissolved itself and the Westminster parliament assumed government of the whole island.

Relations between England and Scotland were worsened by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 by supported of the exiled Stuart royal family (remember this family had been legitimate rulers of Scotland) against the Hanoverian monarchy imported to replace Queen Anne, daughter of WilliamandMary, who died without children.

Repression of these rebellions caused a lot of the historical bad feeling.

Those rebellions where the Jacobites right? That's mostly the highlanders who quite frankly are an unruly lot who would fight anyone including other Scots and even other Highlanders. In fact, especially other Highlanders. Doesn't seem fair to even simplify those as some sort of Scotsman vs. Englishman showdown.

 Medium of Death wrote:
There's no plan to default. There will be a currency union.

No there wont. The statement not to allow currency union is not a pressure for a No vote that will evaporate after a Yes vote. Its a soklid and well founded concern that if Scotland retains the pound it can borrow and borrow and borrow and borrow and then expect Englsnd to pay when Scotland cant repay.
Salmond has already threatened a debt default, Salmond will threaten to default again when the Scottish economy cant pay its bills.
This is not a concern for Scots frankly, Salmond will be able to borrow with a join account linked to a neighbour nine times its economic size, that is a good position for Scots. It is a disasterous position for ther rUK, and thus the only option available is to say no currency union.

 Medium of Death wrote:

All I can say is that I've heard that claims of businesses moving their offices as over exaggerated.

Again, no it isnt. They havent moved yet, but many will.

 Medium of Death wrote:

The UK is poised to exit the EU. If anything having a base in Scotland would be good for future business.

Again this is a minority opinion unlikely to manifest.

 Medium of Death wrote:

The political spectrum in Scotland is completely different than the rest of the UK. We've got a chance to rid ourselves of the House of Lords and Westminster that would smash down the Scottish Parliament when they are given the chance. Borris doesn't want to give us extra powers and we all know UKIP isn't the Scottish Parliaments biggest fan.

Generally Scotland is further left.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's now or never for Scotland.

Agreed. Up to a point, though if there is a No vote Salmond will ask for another referendum.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Some people call for solidarity among the working classes but I'm sorry, these people have had 30 years to build themselves back up after Maggie neutered them. Labour were in power for 13 continous years during that time. This groundwork shouldn't be getting started now. It's also too late to offer Devo-Max options now. Westminster already spat in the face of Scotland in that regard. This debate has been very telling. Scotland is the benefit scrounging, heroin addict, burden of the UK. Allowed to suffer an existence at the expense of the rest of the UK.

A bit too anglophobic.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Labour is not the answer. They've already introduced rot into the NHS, the pillar of modern Britain. Watch as that crumbles over the next few years.

Immigration policy has done that.

 Medium of Death wrote:

A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.

I cant fault that one.

I have to say that the whole thing still looks like a compromise whatever happens. If Scotland decides it wants to become independent, as is its right to, then it should be full and total independence. It should be treated as a totally separate nation state, with everything that that entails. There shouldn't be all this discussion about what is gong to be be kept and what isn't. If you vote to become independent, then that's what you become.

I fully understand and respect why Scots would want to become independent, but there is a danger that if it isn't a complete separation the rest of the UK will think you want your cake and eat it. What was the arrangement when Eire got it's independence? Surely at a minimum the same should be applied in this situation?

 Medium of Death wrote:
...
...
...
What you've basically said translates exactly to what the "No" campaign have done. Failure to show what staying in the union brings to Scotland, only fear mongering and then vague promises.
...

The "No" campaign has no need to explain what staying in the union brings to Scotland. You are in it, and know what it brings.

That's true. We do see what it brings. Conservative Governments, the House of Lords, illegal foreign wars, backing unscrupulous regimes, massive/growing wealth disparity etc.

I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

A retained NHS will form the base of an Independent Scotland and those South of the Border will look North and wonder how it all went wrong.

I cant fault that one.

HERE COMES THE LOVE!


The Telegraph:

“If independence is rejected, large majorities of voters south of the Border support cutting Scottish public spending to the UK average and banning Scottish MPs from voting on English-only laws at Westminster.

By a [...] large margin of 56 per cent to 12 per cent, the English said Scottish public spending should be cut to the UK average following a No vote.”

The Times:

“English voters want the government to take a hard line against Scotland even if its residents vote “no” to independence. Funding should be cut and Scottish MPs should no longer have a say over English matters, according to a survey.

The findings will unsettle parties in the pro-Union campaign, who have promised a good deal for Scotland if it remains in the UK.”

The Herald:

“Voters south of the Border want a cut to Scottish annual public spending of almost £1,400 per person if there is a No vote.”

The Scotsman:

“An English backlash against Scotland’s demands for greater political power is looming, whatever the outcome of the independence referendum.

Even after a No vote, people south of the Border say public spending in Scotland should be reduced to bring it into line with the UK average, which the SNP has warned could see £4 billion removed from the Scottish budget.

‘The English appear in no mood to be particularly accommodating however Scots choose to vote in their independence referendum,’ said researcher Professor Richard Wyn Jones, of Cardiff University.

There is strong English support for reducing levels of public spending in Scotland to the UK average – a development that would lead to savage cuts in public services north of the Border.’”

It seems safe to say that the lovebombing is over, readers.

The only thing we’re a bit confused about is the £4bn figure. The No campaign has been hammering away for several weeks now on that figure of £1400 “for every man, woman and child” in extra UK spending in Scotland. The population of Scotland is 5.3 million. Multiplied by £1400 that’s £7.42bn, not £4bn.

That’s the £7bn figure we told you about last November, which would be slashed from the Scottish budget were the Barnett Formula (the source of the “higher spending”) to be ended and Scotland made to raise its own tax revenue under new devolved powers proposed by all three Unionist parties – but NOT given control of its oil revenues.

It would be impossible to recoup that vast figure from tax rises, because people would simply flood out of Scotland in their millions. The only way to get it back would be, as noted by Professor Jones, cuts to the Scottish budget of an absolutely colossal magnitude dwarfing anything previously seen under austerity.

Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from that responsibility and go crawling meekly to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them viciously, and can do so in the name of “more devolution”.

We told you nine months ago. Perhaps now the mainstream press has finally caught up with the story, more Scots will face up to the reality of the decision before them.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?

A protest vote in the same way that the rise of the BNP a while ago was, as well as the rise of right wing and anti-EU parties has been across the whole of Europe. And I really wish people would stop posting the crap from Wings Over Scotland. It is like me posting something from the Daily Mail, if the Daily Mail were 100% anti-Scottish...

Poll shows =/= government will do. There has been calls for years to stop Scottish MPs voting on English only laws, yet nothing has changed, despite it being a perfectly fair, simple and reasonable change.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
I definitely think the UK is headed out of the EU. Surely the first signal is the rise in UKIP support?

A protest vote in the same way that the rise of the BNP a while ago was, as well as the rise of right wing and anti-EU parties has been across the whole of Europe. And I really wish people would stop posting the crap from Wings Over Scotland. It is like me posting something from the Daily Mail, if the Daily Mail were 100% anti-Scottish...

Except that it's quotes from various national newspapers. I'm not commenting on the quality of that website, but the quotes are there and link to the articles.

Again, we have to take notice of these things. The way Boris has been talking hardly inspires confidence. You can bet he'll be the next major Conservative PM candidate and then Prime Minister. The future is looking less bright for Scotland in the Union. We may as well be in charge of our own future.

 Steve steveson wrote:

The borders are almost universally accepted as being along the current border, which is well defined because of the different legal systems.

That's because the subject as an issue has yet to arise. But I would wager good money that that would change in the event of a 'Yes' vote. I think that yes, if you have one small staunchly Pro-Unionist area surrounded by Pro-Independence ones, they'd have to like it or lump it. It would be far too complicated to operate half a dozen enclaves across Scotland.

By the same measure though, if the six Scottish constituencies closest to the ancient border of England voted heavily in favour of Unionism, I would be extremely surprised if their democratic right to self-determination was ignored in favour of a border demarcation hundreds of years old. Their MP's would be jumping up and down in Parliament saying, '75% of my constituents have voted to stay put, how can you try and force them into a new country?'

And to be frank, they'd be right. The whole point of this referendum is for people to exercise their democratic right to self-determination, and whilst you have to temper that with a certain degree of pragmatism (the aforementioned comment about enclaves), moving the border further north in line with the democratic will of its population would present no further complications than those already initiated by the process of independence.

After all, how you claim to be representing democracy when your decision over borders is determined not by the will of the populace, but by boundaries set in place hundreds of years ago? Borders that even at the time, used to move up and down. I mean, it was called Reiver Country for a reason, the Lords who ruled it were of a heavily mixed stock and changed allegiances quite frequently. So even the argument from history is a bit iffy. If you start going down that path, we might as well surrender the Falklands and Gibraltar already, because self-determination is no longer the criteria being used to decide who gets what.

Yes, they should be, being born in the UK would entitle them to UK citizenship. Scottish citizenship is a little more complex, but it looks like there will probably be a requirement to either be resident or by birth/heritage as with any other passport.

So why should someone in Scotland who wants a British passport get one, but someone in the rest of Britain who wants a Scottish passport not get one? Seems to me that if things are going to be fair, I should be able to get dual nationality. Both were parts of my country after all. I can understand children born after independence being limited, but me? I have as much a right to live there as anyone.

This is one of the big questions that is still not answered. Most probably at the moment Scottish regiments and there equipment will become Scottish. The bigh budget stuff, like ships, is a bit more complex. I doubt Scotland would want the big stuff, but how the value is split is part of the detail of negotiations. Mid sized stuff like tanks and smaller ships is also a complex issue.

I don't think you can start parcelling out a tank here and there, tbh. It simply isn't practical.

As I mentioned earlier, Parliament ultimately has the power to decide the terms of independence, not Holyrood. I think the MOD will pressure quite intensively to keep all their toys. The Scots will most likely inherit all the bases up north with it's accompanying equipment and installations, but when it comes down to movable assets like tanks and warships, I'd be doubtful a new Scotland would get a look in.

Ye, another issue. Salmond making promises he can't keep. The UK has many dockyards and one of the reasons these contracts went to Scottish ones was political, about spreading government spending around the UK. If Scotland is no longer part of the UK the government will try and get out of current contracts and not place any more. Yes will call this fear mongering and bullying, but it is simple political fact that you don't let another government build your warships.

It's also good economic policy. There's a distinct lack of shipbuilding work about at the moment. It makes sense to preserve the skills within your own country. In the event of independence, I'm expecting to see Portsmouth & Barrow seriously expanded, and all the Scottish shipbuilders flooding south to where the work is.

As far as I am aware the legislation is already in place, there should be no blocking by anyone and independence will happen quite quickly. Wether all of the details on things like the issues you have outlined are hammered out at that point, I don't know, but everything should be in place. Ultimately it will be damaging for the UK to have it hanging around for too long.

I agree it will be damaging. But I also consider it to be a likely possibility that things might get delayed. The second chamber is a law unto itself, and can block legislation twice and send it back. It also has a lot of people/factions who have assets in Scotland, who are likely to use independence as a bargaining chip until certain conditions are met.

I could be completely wrong, and it could all breeze through, but I don't honestly think that we'll be able to undo this many years of Union in under a decade of protracted wrangling.

We can go back through history and look at ancient borders but we aren't. Scotland has well defined borders. We're not talking about the break up of a single country as many people claim, these are different countries that are severing a union.