the scottish independence referendum

what if Scotland is granted independence on the condition that it can no longer be called Scotland

UK other than Scotland/y

I don't think it'll be particularly good for England if they vote yes, but reckon it's the right decision for them. Also new countries are exciting.

scotland could go back to calling themselves this, depending on what tirana's finest copyright lawyers have to say about it

The toponym Albania may indicate several different geographical regions: a country in the Balkans; an ancient land in the Caucasus; as well as Scotland, Albania being a Latinization of a Gaelic name for Scotland, Alba.[1]

"Alba" or something similar is still the word for Scotland in most Celtic languages.

what are the stakes behind this referendum?

what does ilx poster <small_house_icon> think about this?

tentatively in favour of hoping this goes through, even though the shortest odds are 4/1

so hoping in realistic terms for a close enough vote in order that it prolongs the argument

I would bet cash money on <small_house_icon> being firmly in the y camp.

I'm Scotland/undecided but swaying slowly towards y.

most interesting aspect of this for me is whether ppl feel strongly about it in either direction and if so why. would have preferred a poll about that specifically but at least dgaf options are furnished so i appreciate that. it would be great if anyone who does feel strongly would declare themselves and their reasons.

I dunno. It is a hard sell to voters to tell them that they could not possibly succeed if they were on their own. Seems to me the only remotely serious argument against independence is how much it would shrink the economic base upholding the currency. Five years ago that question could have been answered rather confidently by reference to joining the euro. Nowadays not so much.

As an outlander with no stake in the outcome, I lean in favor of Scotland paddling her own canoe. But on my end it is just a parlor game and I know it.

new countries are cool and if the scottish people want their own country they shd do it, who cant understand not wanting to be married to england right m8, however the two things ive heard economic wise: retaining the pound and reliance on north sea oil $$$ are objectively tragic bad signs

voted non uk / y fwiw and am decidedly uninformed on the topic

xp Well, more like seven years ago.

non-uk/y come on in the euro's lovely

Five years ago that question could have been answered rather confidently by reference to joining the euro. Nowadays not so much.

― Aimless, Monday, 25 August 2014 21:50 (8 minutes ago)

if anything now would be a better time to adopt the € because the consequences for feckless minor nations within a currency union without a debt union have been spelt out and can be managed prospectively, while the hypothetical benefits of currency union mostly remain

the problem is more that under the influence of major eu countries such as spain who are troubled by secessionist movements, the eu can't freely extend membership

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-independence-eu-bid-extremely-difficult-says-jose-manuel-barroso-9131925.html

dont. adopt. the euro.

not voting but i hope Sean Connery comes out of seclusion to comment on the result.

all the ppl I know who are voting are english and voting y

i'm in favour bcuz it holds promise & it's a blow to westminster

albion-derived names arguably more appropriate for what would be left of the uk

if they don't adopt the euro then they try to stay within the dominion of the ecb who determine monetary largely with reference to the southeast of england, or they have their own cool new currency and bond issue supporting a nordic public expenditure on an iberian gdp, there aren't any good choices

if u have your own country you need your own currency end of story

Nope, the top half of the island is Alba, bottom half is Lloegr.

supporting a nordic public expenditure on an iberian gdp is something theyre gonna have to worry about reguardless

all the ppl I know who are voting are english and voting y

the english get a vote??

assuming english residing in scotland

if u have your own country you need your own currency end of story

― lag∞n, Monday, 25 August 2014 22:19 (2 minutes ago)

yeah but lagz m8 that isnt current policy

Salmond believes that an independent Scotland should share the pound with the rest of the UK in a formal currency union that would see the Bank of England ­remain responsible for monetary policy. A currency union would also see Scotland would have the same exchange rate as the rest of the UK.

thats the scotsmans summary quoted so if it isnt correct blame the scotsman

well scotland isnt really a country right now as the rest of the world understands countries

i guess my vote is non uk / y, why? bc the lolz

branwell as you may well know the oldest (latin&greek) uses of albion were referring to the island of great britain. idk how it came to refer just to scotland, possibly due to identification w/ persisting celtic population

suspect scotland will keep the pound one way or another

Under the terms of the 2010 Draft Bill, the following people would be entitled to vote in the referendum:[18]
British citizens who are resident in Scotland;
citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland;
citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland;
members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland;
Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the British Armed Forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

Basically, people in Scotland.

not sure why "members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland" has its own mention, presumably being w/in the set of british citizen resident in scotland

am i right in assuming that british citizens residing in Scotland are more likely to vote against the ref in comparison to natives?

Yes the Albionii stayed in the top of the island, and the Sowsneks/Saesnegs/Sassenachs overran the bottom bit so they had to rename it to accommodate the bloody foreigners, why should they get to come over here and take our good, Celtic name for the island.

albion-derived names arguably more appropriate for what would be left of the uk

― ogmor, Monday, 25 August 2014 22:15 (27 minutes ago)

this is tendentious rather than apodictic

the precedent of slovakia/slovenia and guinea/guinea bissau allows for countries in the same area to have similar names

albania (long form caledonia albania) in the north

albion (long form pete doherty's albion) in the south

lol I could smell the word sassenach in the air before it arrived. afaik it's v unclear where terms like albion or celts first recorded in greek&roman writings originated, whether they were self-ascribed, proudly claimed after the fact or w/e. the amount of population movement vs cultural assimilation is obv contentious in what happened to them. anyway scotland seems like a p solid name, but albion/the democratic republic of albion would be good trolling for the rest of the uk to deploy

Scotii were Fucken Irish bastards anyway. Call it Pictland, send the Sowsneks back to Saxony & be done with the whole mess.

i thought i'd google up a vox article to get a rundown on the implications of the referendum. i generally have no time for them but this seems like something they'd be good at doing. unfortunately they haven't deemed it worthy of coverage yet.

I'm Scottish and fairly certain I'll be voting no. Unless there are some revelations to come.

I'll fully admit that I'm terrible at understanding political terminology. I don't think I'd be very good at examining the facts, figures and knowing what the reliable sources are. I just have to trust whoever sounds the smartest.

I've heard quite widely that the possible independent futures with the European Union, NATO and the currency are highly uncertain. The speculations about rising cost of living and economic disaster terrify me. Some have said that women voters are largely on the "no" side because they think more cautiously about future stability (for all I know maybe that is horseshit).
Some of the pro-independence promises about the possibilities sounded great but then there have been some further arguments to undermine that. Especially in regards to sustaining any of the good things in future decades.

The idea of SNP wanting to keep the monarchy is not encouraging. If I was confident Scotland could emulate the better Scandinavian countries I would vote yes easily.

I'm sure some of my friends will be angry about my position and they may well know Scottish people better than I do but I'm highly sceptical of the idea of Scotland being less bigoted than the rest of Britain. I'm scared of the isolationist mentality increasing. I'm quite worried about hearing stories of people with English accents being attacked.
The hideous patriotism and stories of "no" huts being set on fire are scary. But I've been told it's been very ugly on both sides.

i should've known to go w/ the week

If I was confident Scotland could emulate the better Scandinavian countries I would vote yes easily.

This is my big problem with the ideological argument here. We aren't going to turn into a socialist utopia overnight. I would love it if we did. But come the 19th September we're still going to have bigotry and class distinction and all the other problems. This is a country where at the most recent opportunity we got ourselves a UKIP representative despite their minimal presence above the border. I'm seeing people in their teens and early twenties who didn't grow up knowing who Thatcher was (and so don't have that Tory-hate that seems ingrained in the national psyche), so when people say "Vote No Get Tory" I don't really think it's a valid argument - the values could easily sneak in by another name.

I am still undecided. I think better democracy could come from more localised, closer representation but there's still the problems of far too many politicians in Scotland coming from backgrounds of comparative affluence and privilege. The SNP will break up once the common goal is achieved and it's hard to predict what will happen then. Probably veering towards yes but there's just as many unanswered questions and unignorable issues on both sides.

the counterfactual seems to be the lost dream where scotland gots its independence before the uk turned to monetarism and before the better part of north sea oil revenues were accounted for, in which free scotland acquired a norway sized sovereign wealth fund and applied to a dirigist program of national re-education directed at its internal class/sectarian/regional factions in order to unify as free scotland under the scottish freedom krona

The option of more devolution hasn't been discussed widely enough.

"devo max"?

I'm pretty much in the dark about how tourism will be changed or the lives of people who regularly travel between Scotland and any other part of UK.
I don't know how important tourism is to the economy but I imagine that Scotland is only visited by a lot of people who are prioritizing a trip to England. Would it be more hassle to go to an independent Scotland for these people?

Will we still be using co.uk sites? Will we have the BBC?

I don't really know what maximum devolution would do either.

I heard our internet might be slower but I hope that was a sick joke.

want Scotland to vote yes because a) hilarity and b) everybody in favour of "No" is a cunt

tragically not going to happen tho, clearly

I just have to ask: Which are the 'better' Scandinavian countries, and which ones aren't?

i'm not sure that's true. it's an increasingly real possibility. i've done a 180 on this in the past year and am now firmly in the yes camp. the only movements i have seen are towards a yes vote - virtually no one seems to be running the other way. I have regrets about it but basically - cameron + osborne + even worse on the horizon (ik,r?) = fuck this shit. scotland is really not like the bulk of the uk, socially.

i'm voting yes and i truly believe there will be a yes outcome.

the whole scotland = scandi thing is ridiculous though.

y

best thing i've read endorsing the yes vote: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/yes

I'm Scottish/Y. Not voting because I don't live there anymore. Nothing would make me prouder than YES winning this thing. My reasons are political - Scotland has never felt like it is controlled by the Scots, who have generally voted overwhelmingly against whichever government sits at Westminster. All the multitude of shit stuff about Scotland seems out of our control. Being independent would mean taking responsibility for all that.

i suppose it's a cynical thought but it seems to be true that the yes voters/those for change are significantly more likely to actually vote than those who simply want to retain the status quo.

i think this really could swing it.

although, thankfully, it looks like this will be the most highly attended vote in uk history.

quebec came within like one point of seceding from canada a while ago, wouldve been wild

some of my neighbours seemingly still havent taken down the posters from then, there is still "non" graffiti (federalist) on the side of a building on my street.

all I can say is this stuff never goes away so I hope, whatever the outcome, it stays calm and people are able to reconcile themselves to the outcome.

american/y/very uninformed, but rly just in favor of the ongoing dismantling of English empire

Merdeyeux- thanks for that article, I think I'm swaying closer to undecided now.

that article is good on the left or at least non-nationalist case for secession

though it would be too optimistic to wish for england too lose its manifest destiny apologists and the constituency that thinks a 70 thousand tonne aircraft carrier is just the ticket in 2014, it would surely help to have their wings clipped

i can certainly understand the appeal but the yes campaign, like quebec before it, seems to be predicated on the wish that all the things people *like* will continue undisturbed, which isn't true

(not that a complete shakeup of the existing order lacks a draw, of course)

(no idea what exactly an independent scotland's claim on north sea oil money would be, but first nations ppl in northern quebec have their own idea about where hydro-quebec revenues should flow)

and you can peg your currency to the pound or the euro or the dollar, but that's a pretty half-assed sovereignty, and one with much less input than scotland currently has in the uk

sovereignty in the era of the EU and the globalized economy is maybe something different than it once was. the 'No' campaign has consistently sought to portray independence as impossible, which is a straight lie imo.

if some quirk of fate led to a vote for the city of Hull to secede from the Father of Imperialism i wd still vote Yes btw

If there is a Yes will people in Eng be condemmed to a lifetime of Tories?

I know a "does it matter?" could be the ans to this.

There have only been three elections since 1945 where the result in Scotland changed the government in Westminster at the general election. Twice it helped return Labour governments with tiny majorities rather than the hung parliament the result elsewhere would have meant (64, 74b). In 2010 it meant a hung parliament rather than a tiny Conservative minority.

if i could vote i wouldn't because i would rather leave it to ppl who really care either way. i guess if compelled i would vote no, i do think the uk is marginally more than the sum of its parts. i don't see independence making much of a material change in the average scottish person's existence. the economic argument in favour of union seems more compelling. clearly things material or economic are not really the driving force anyway and you can't argue with ~feelings~.

i don't know the extent to which this is being talked about, but interesting subthemes for me are, the uk after scotland, which is suddenly v awkward, and along similar lines, i can't imagine your norn irish are super pleased by the prospect of scotland fucking off.

It's dawned on me that everyone I know in Scotland is voting yes... apart from my mum, who isn't voting... and one friend who seems to be voting no out of sheer contrariness. Britain in 2014 is a morally bankrupt shithole, so I can understand voting yes, though nationalism makes me queasy and Scottish nationalism queasier still.

One friend of mine, who I would never in a million years have described as a nationalist, just posted this on Facebook, that's the sort of thing that seems to be driving the people I know to vote yes... they'll still lose though.

Most people I speak to are voting yes. I still think the NOs form a silent majority.

be interesting to know what percentage of people outside of Scotland are sick of the UK as a political entity too

Be interesting to know what percentage of people outside of Scotland are sick of Scotland. I get the feeling a large chunk of the south would happily cut us loose.

yeah but fuck them

the independence odds now down to ~5/2

Most recent data I saw had 53%/47% not including undecided and with the tide moving towards "Yes" so I think those are still good odds if you fancy a flutter.

the bookmakers are probably considering that uncertainty or fear of the unknown will result in slightly fewer votes for independence than the current polling suggests

tend to imagine it will be a narrow vote against independence and then a quick push from across the political spectrum for some version of 'devolution max' to suture everything back together again in a ramshackle way

The poll I was talking about had 10% undecided so maybe that's where the swing is? I don't really see many of the 53% yeses changing their mind.

xpost what you're saying may ring true but these kind of statements reflect the overall deep, deep denial from the government & media that this is as likely to go to the yeses as the noes.

The poll I was talking about had 10% undecided so maybe that's where the swing is? I don't really see many of the 53% yeses changing their mind.

― everything, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:11 (6 minutes ago)

the margins dont require 'many' and changing their mind doesnt mean voting against, rather just not voting

i personally know two people who have jumped the fence from NO to YES in the last week alone and several more undecided who have gone YES . i think and hope that this is within our grasp.

denial from the government & media that this is as likely to go to the yeses as the noes.

― everything, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:15 (2 minutes ago)

that denial would not extend to bookmakers who could have fairly significant liabilities on this market

no reason to suggest the government are unaware that there is a significant chance of a vote for independence, however naive their public statements seem

Well, there doesn't seem to be any plan for what happens if Yes wins.

government contingency plans are more likely to be circulated among ministers that distributed to journalists in pdf

i wonder why the UK government and the No campaign in general might want to create the impression that a Yes vote will lead to unplanned chaos

it's almost as if the No campaign has continually tried to create the dishonest impression that Scotland wd be cut loose overnight after a Yes vote

/than/ distributed

the uk government is generally supposed to have the most extensive contingency planning for climate change among the major nations, why would it be so unprepared for independence of scotland

they probably miscalculated the likelihood of a vote for independence a few years ago but fairly safe to assume they have planned extensively for that anyway

which isn't to suggest those plans will be effective

be interesting to know what percentage of people outside of Scotland are sick of the UK as a political entity too

― Daphnis Celesta

well I mean if yer asking......

the plan for a Yes vote is to build a wall from carlisle to newcastle

i wonder why the UK government and the No campaign in general might want to create the impression that a Yes vote will lead to unplanned chaos

― Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 21:32 (3 minutes ago)

there is this, and then there is the snp's suggestion that the current uk government are completely unprepared naifs, which is sentimentally appealling and helps to embolden the wavering

the contingency planning will involve all sorts of devious sub rosa manipulations, bribes and blackmails to secure faslane at all costs so no surprise cameron doesn't want to talk about them

Most likely trade is that it's for currency union.

Well, there doesn't seem to be any plan for what happens if Yes wins.

― everything, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 20:28

Applies to both sides of the argument imo.

More so from the gov. Unless you buy the theory that they're well prepped but secretive about it. Which again could apply to either side.

they probably miscalculated the likelihood of a vote for independence a few years ago but fairly safe to assume they have planned extensively for that anyway

Normally nakh talks sense but I have no idea why he's so confident about the forward planning abilities of this current goverment - with David "Lazybones" Cameron at the helm

It occurs to me that I don't actually trust either side of this debate very much. Nationalism of any stripe is pretty repugnant to me and I don't really believe that the SNP or a lot of their supporters are particularly left wing at heart, any more than the Lib Dems were.

God knows I wouldn't choose to be governed by our shower of cunts if I could opt out of it so I see the appeal of the Yes vote. But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence.

I suppose what I'm interested in is the sort of Scottish Right that will emerge in the event of a Yes vote. I suspect that both Labour and the SNP have benefited from the Scottish Tories being such a tainted party that even right-leaning people wouldn't vote for them, but the emergence of either a new RW party or a lurch to the Right from the SNP would hoover up those voters.

the government in this instance isn't just the few main officers of state but the entire cabinet office and other department who will furnish them with all of the relevant plans

if you don't think all of this has been fully laid then to them then you are naive

to reiterate this isn't to suggest that all of those plans in their platonic splendour will be able to take account of all of the various contingencies (alluded to here) especially where financial markets are concerned and various more or less unforeseeable disasters that might occur

and it doesn't remotely suggest that the executive will implement them effectively, but there will be no lack of best laid plans

Times apparently has a poll tomorrow with a clear lead for Yes

this certainly has the look of an endgame about it

https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/508195079195201536

Voted 'dgaf', but that sounds more aggressive than I really feel. I don't especially care one way or the other, but if a majority of Scots vote for independence, they should have it. My main worry is that it will make it more difficult to get rid of a Tory government in what's left of Britain, but that's obviously not something that should sway the vote for Scots.

http://i.imgur.com/jXbV7SQ.jpg

Tipping point.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/

that is a beautiful thing.

that sort of looks like 'fingers crossed'

this could have a dynamic of its own from now on, once the scarcely possible of a year ago becomes possible, the wavering might just be emboldened

if nothing else it makes it look like independence is an inevitability, if not now then in the not so far future, in which case why wait?

no precedent which is what makes it so exciting, along with the likelihood of a huge turnout

Reminds me of the last election when the polls for the Lib Dems were looking a lot better than what turned out to be in polling day so..

oh, shush.

I suspect the civil service has been planning, but I'm not sure that counts for much. There certainly hasn't been any planning at the political level, and all the sounds of panic we're hearing tonight are proof of that.

Hell, if the government had been taking this seriously would they still have acted like they have the past four years? New weird taxes on the poor, cuts for the wealthy and even more privatisation is almost the perfect mix to ignite the Thatcher grudges again.

(But from what I can tell, this isn't just the old wrongs reheated. It's much more positive than that. Which is fantastic to see: All sorts of politically disengaged people I know are firing up)

that single poll is a statistical 50/50 as it says, and combined with all of the other polling the weight of probabilities is still with no

nobody is calling it yet but once it goes from 80/20 no to 60/40 to....it isn't an inexorable movement because it could just trigger a backlash but it gets hopes up, and that might be the difference

Davis Moyes being right back on the no team might just about win this for the yes team.

I suspect the civil service has been planning, but I'm not sure that counts for much. There certainly hasn't been any planning at the political level, and all the sounds of panic we're hearing tonight are proof of that.

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:25 (9 minutes ago)

the political level has mostly been minor tories crowing but the civil service is mostly what i was referring to, that there will be (necessarily crude) contingency planning in the cabinet office that will have some approval by the higher ministers, it wasn't a suggestion that the dynamic against the no compaign was foreseen by cameron et al

Hell, if the government had been taking this seriously would they still have acted like they have the past four years? New weird taxes on the poor, cuts for the wealthy and even more privatisation is almost the perfect mix to ignite the Thatcher grudges again.

(But from what I can tell, this isn't just the old wrongs reheated. It's much more positive than that. Which is fantastic to see: All sorts of politically disengaged people I know are firing up)

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:25 (2 minutes ago)

there's a sort of contradiction here because you acknowledge, this has its own momentum which is far more than just 'the current uk administration is detestable'

the better way to look at it isn't that cameron et al failed to cater policy to scotland, rather that they clearly underestimated the movement for independence else they wouldn't have granted this referendum for 2014

'the sounds of panic', insofar as they truly reflect the will of the cabinet itself, are about that miscalculation

all of this neglects that throughout the inept support for the no campaign within the conservative party, they have recognised for years that there is a long game to be played that could favour them in the case of independence, if the dissolution is managed successfully

if you look at everything the newer generations of conservatives have been saying, there isn't a lot to suggest they are wedded to the union as an end in itself, certainly not as a transcendent political ideal

To respond to Matt DC "Nationalism of any stripe is pretty repugnant to me and I don't really believe that the SNP or a lot of their supporters are particularly left wing at heart, any more than the Lib Dems were."

This isn't about nationalism, it's about democracy, being a normal country as opposed to a very junior partner in a moribund, over-centralised and undemocratic union. I'm a Green and a Yes, and while I don't like everything the SNP has done, they have a solid record of social democratic policies, the sort of things the right-wing Labour party has long abandoned.

"But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence."

Scotland has never been a monoculture and the existence of campaign groups Asians For Yes, Poles for Yes, Africans for Yes is testament to the absence of any ethnic element. Scotland isn't immune to the toxic anti-immigration rhetoric of down south, but all the political parties up here have generally avoided going down that route.

"I suppose what I'm interested in is the sort of Scottish Right that will emerge in the event of a Yes vote. I suspect that both Labour and the SNP have benefited from the Scottish Tories being such a tainted party that even right-leaning people wouldn't vote for them, but the emergence of either a new RW party or a lurch to the Right from the SNP would hoover up those voters."

Of course there's a Scottish centre-right constituency who an independent Scottish Tory party would cater for, but it's not large enough to win. But even if it did become the government so be it, that's democracy. The beautiful thing about this referendum is that it's not about party politics.

the better way to look at it isn't that cameron et al failed to cater policy to scotland, rather that they clearly underestimated the movement for independence else they wouldn't have granted this referendum for 2014

You're right, but there's underestimating and then there's showing complete contempt for. Some of the things they've done recently, especially TTIP, almost seem like they're goading Scottish sentiment. Of course, they aren't intentionally provoking, they're just oblivious. And it's that obliviousness which I think is particularly infuriating to Scots.

Whether they're playing a long game is an interesting one, not least as it feels like the short game is all downsides for the conservatives. Losing oil, a spike in Sterling rates, more austerity, a surge in UKIP, none of the likely consequences should sound appealing to them. Nor is it certain that they'd weather them well enough to enjoy the long-term benefits.

i thought the losing oil bit was not foregone?

I agree with Stew, It's not about nationalism. I don't actually see that element, at all, amongst people i've been talking to

"But Scotland strikes me as very monocultural in a way that could get worse after independence."

Scotland is moving pretty fast. Monocultural perhaps describes Scotland 10 years ago fairly well but now? No. I think this view of the SNP is also one that's about ten years old but doesn't reflect what's actually happening now. In fact the BNP/UKIP axis influence in Scotland is laughably small.

Almost nothing's foregone - that's been pretty much the whole No strategy in a nutshell. But it's more likely than not that at least some will go. Sterling's rate will reflect even the uncertainty pretty quickly. xp

is dr. who voting yes or no?

Don't be lasagna, Mordy

This isn't about nationalism, it's about democracy, being a normal country as opposed to a very junior partner in a moribund, over-centralised and undemocratic union. I'm a Green and a Yes, and while I don't like everything the SNP has done, they have a solid record of social democratic policies, the sort of things the right-wing Labour party has long abandoned.

Yeah I know, I'm familiar with all this, and I agree with a lot of it. But most of the Yes people I follow on the internet are passionate, articulate, relatively young and left-leaning. The Yes campaign strikes me as overwhelmingly positive in a way that, cynic that I am, I don't quite believe, and I wonder if there is a nastier element lurking in there in places I don't see. If not, then great.

In fact the BNP/UKIP axis influence in Scotland is laughably small

But why is it laughably small? (Actually the BNP axis in England is laughably small as well but that's neither here nor there). Do those reactionary elements just not exist in any real numbers in Scotland? Are Scottish people just better? Or is it that existence of a viable alternative to the two main parties just means that there's a more positive outlet for post-New Labour disillusionment so reactionary parties and policies gain less traction? I'm guessing the latter, but would that state of affairs continue in the event of a Yes vote (especially if Scotland were to get into economic difficulty)?

all of this neglects that throughout the inept support for the no campaign within the conservative party, they have recognised for years that there is a long game to be played that could favour them in the case of independence, if the dissolution is managed successfully

In the short-term a Yes vote is likely to be disastrous for the Conservative Party, Cameron will go down in (English) history as a clown and a bungler. In the longer term, given the voting patterns in the rest of the UK, I'd guess it would favour them, given the removal of a big chunk of Labour seats? The rural South of England isn't going to stop voting Tory any time soon.

I guess I'm in "don't want them to leave, hope they succeed if they do, my opinion doesn't really matter" territory. Except the consequences for England look grim here, especially the North of England. I also haven't read very much on the potential consequences for Northern Ireland, who is good on this subject?

the labour party is essentially fucked if scotland go, right?

Not necessarily, but it will be interesting to see if various voices in the media try to paint a Yes vote as Labour's fuck-up rather than lay it at the door of David Cameron, who will obviously try to bluff through being the PM in charge at a point of deep humiliation.

The Labour Party is essentially fucked anyway, I think. I doubt the independence movement (and arguably UKIP) would have gained as much traction if Labour was seen as caring much about the people they claim to represent. Sometimes you only really see the effects of governments several years after their time in office but we're only now seeing the deep damage Blair has done to both his party and democracy in this country.

speculating about the medium to long term results impact of a Yes vote on England is pretty random, there's no real clear picture of what the impact will be on Scotland either, not least whether it becomes a beacon or a cautionary tale - for those inclined to need those things

also of course there's a nationalist element to the whole history of the campaign for independence, some arbitrary "North of England" will never be able to secede precisely because it wd have too tenuous a nation-state mythology

Whether they're playing a long game is an interesting one, not least as it feels like the short game is all downsides for the conservatives. Losing oil, a spike in Sterling rates, more austerity, a surge in UKIP, none of the likely consequences should sound appealing to them. Nor is it certain that they'd weather them well enough to enjoy the long-term benefits.

― stet, Sunday, 7 September 2014 00:55 (14 hours ago)

In the short-term a Yes vote is likely to be disastrous for the Conservative Party, Cameron will go down in (English) history as a clown and a bungler. In the longer term, given the voting patterns in the rest of the UK, I'd guess it would favour them, given the removal of a big chunk of Labour seats? The rural South of England isn't going to stop voting Tory any time soon.

― Matt DC, Sunday, 7 September 2014 11:42 (3 hours ago)

this again reflects different elements of the conservative party. very difficult to analyse because the different elements of the decision making within the conservative party are not transparent there's a lot of cognitive dissonance at work in the conservative party.

clearly it isn't either 'save the beloved union at all costs' or 'alienate scotland to ensure future conservative hegemony.' for cameron it's surely true that he has miscalculated the referendum date and terms. his political shelflife was expiring rapidly even before the dynamic shifted in scotland though, and he has little personal support. for the rest it's not so clear, high conservative politics is a sublimated knifefight, each for himself.

maybe it could be analysed within the normative scheme of weber's political sociology, traditional/affective or rational (value rational or instrumental). the affective bonds towards union are strong only with the dying coterie of edward leigh and other artefacts. maybe cameron still has some vestigial clan loyalty to the auld ones. traditional bonds, 'this shall be done as ever it was' also don't seem that relevant. traditional constitutional arrangments have been evaporating over the last 20 years, the artificialty of the 1707 union is evident.

so in terms of rationality, whatever that might mean, instrumentally there are all sorts of immediate difficulties with sterling, cta, faslane etc. the weighting is clearly towards a new settlement with extended devolution terms as osborne describes today. the dissonance occurs when the ideological value rationality gnaws away at the conservative conscience. the spectre of a newly streamlined, liberalized english core further weighted towards finance capital and english separate development, singapore floating somewhere in mid-atlantic on renegotiated terms outside or on the periphery of the eu. further ideological split from the nativist/reactionary ukip to the neoliberal internationalist conservatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0flxQCmb5oY

Could Cameron continue as PM if Scotland voted for independence? He'd have to go surely?

too close to a general election they're already committed to, any challenge wd be hand-waved away under that rationale

also he had the sense not to be leader of the No campaign

I think he's dead if there's a Yes vote, this is worse than Eden and Suez.

that is a patently absurd comparison

Why would he be finished? (I mean, I think he's a dead man walking anyway, unless there's a massive shift in the polls, as he can't survive if the Tories fail to get an overall majority again and the odds are still against that - but why would a vote for Scottish independence finish him off sooner?)

this a conservative prime minister who plenty within his own party hate or distrust, surrounded by ambitious people who could try to foment uprising/leadership challenges

so it might well happen but it isn't inevitable

I also haven't read very much on the potential consequences for Northern Ireland, who is good on this subject?

This is a huge unknown, isn't it? What should the name of what's left of the UK even be? 'Great Britain' wouldn't make sense any more, but England, Wales and Northern Ireland is more than a bit unwieldy.

the Remaindered Isles

winner^

Maybe I'm overstating things but I think being Scottish gives you a different relationship to the Union, in that you actually have one, well I do anyway... so apologies for melodrama.

Is there anything to read article-wise on the analysis of implications for Norn Iron?

there are a lot of english people who don't give a shit and outside of the labour party there is ambivalence about it virtually everywhere

as noted shithead, new labour house journalist and iraq war advocate martin kettle says at the end of his column today

English opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of Scots remaining in the UK. Do the English care enough, or know how to get their message across?

the second sentence rather invalidates the former -- evidently not enough english people do care about union, though someone who spends their days talking to blunkett, darling &c would be forgiven for missing that

(xp) if anyone was unsure whether to vote yes, this might persuade you

^ that might swing the vote to yes, right?

eh, in what way?

"If that happened I think an influx of people might move from Scotland to the remaining part of the UK to stay in the union, and their first choice of residence would probably be Northern Ireland," he says.

this is patently ridiculous unless you count less than 100 people out of 5 million as in influx.

I'm assuming that loons with sashes 'n' flutes might persuade a fair few to vote the other way to be rid of them .
Or is tom d saying the Scots should vote no to save norn ireland?

This article says most intending to vote yes do not even identify as nationalists and that the Scots just hate Tories & Nu-Labour. Sectarianism isn't mentioned. Is it playing a part in Scotland? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/07/poll-scottish-independence-nationalist-yougov

The BT campaign has tried to politely ignore support from the BNP and the Orange Order. They're relying on support from that faction of Scottish society but don't want to say much about it as it puts off as many as it gains.

but the "other side" aren't automatically yes amirite?

Is there much anti-English sentiment driving the yes vote or is it just anti-tory in your opinion?
Would non-scots feel welcome there post-independence? Is there any chance of N Ireland style trouble from loyalist unionists?

there's no anti english sentiment on my facebook feed although i have seen some complain of it on theirs. maybe i just move in the right circles but i imagine non-scots would be welcome and that there will briefly be some trouble which will be hugely magnified in the press.

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/09/07/world/europe/08SCOTLAND2/08SCOTLAND2-articleLarge-v2.jpg

based on nothing i feel like yr gonna need yes to have cushion going in election day cause some people will prob chicken out once it starts to seem real

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bw-1Yr5IMAAY31f.jpg:large

hopefully ice or lightning powers

based on nothing i feel like yr gonna need yes to have cushion going in election day cause some people will prob chicken out once it starts to seem real

yeah this tends to be how votes between "more radical" and "less radical" positions go down. momentum is a helluva drug tho.

This article says most intending to vote yes do not even identify as nationalists and that the Scots just hate Tories & Nu-Labour.

the figures cd be right for all i know, but "most just hate Tories" is not the same as "there is no Nationalist component or agenda" - the rest is like, nationalism needn't inevitably lead to anti-sassenach pogroms

What if Scotland becomes a country and you end up with a bunch of samey jackasses in power? In 1995 for Quebec it was extremely close. 19 years later, a few french speaking left wing nationalists are still yearning for a country, but since then the Quebec population keeps electing champions of austerity as provincial Prime Ministers, it's been either that or casual racism/anglophobia disguised as nationalist rhetoric. I mean sure, there was a dream for the scandinavian model republic but as soon as a politician went 'hey guys less taxes' he was elected and re-elected and so on. I don't know how much power Scotland already has, canadian provinces actually have a lot (culture, health, education are mainly provincial affairs) and I feel that if really quebeckers wanted the left wing nation they dreamed of, they would have found a way to become a true left wing province, elected real left wing politicians and we wouldn't have seen the (quite relative) growth in austerity we've seen in the past 15 years.

No pogroms, just Clockwork Orange style re-education centres where people are forced to watch 'Scotch and Wry' and 'The White Heather Club' until the proper Scottish attitudes have been absorbed.

The '95 Quebec referendum seemed far more about banishing the English language from Quebec than installing a left-wing government in tune with their values

http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1585089/courting-dragon

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxBU2P6CIAAqjAB.jpg

This is one of the worst things I have ever read in the Guardian:

http://gu.com/p/4xcj2

i assumed the baby was the first salvo in the black op to undermine independent Scotland by making yr royal family ruinously expensive

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/paul-krugman-scots-what-the-heck.html

I would def vote against it if I were scottish but I guess I am pro-experimental economics since I'm not

Yeah, the North American commentary on this is some of the dumbest shit I've seen.

there's been little to no discussion, as far as i've seen, of the economic impact of scottish independence on the rest of the UK. all the threats and tough talk from the No campaign has utterly ignored any possible consequence to not-scotland and how these consequences wd inform all sorts of negotiations with the newly independent nation

krugman is 100% correct that the plan to stay on the pound is unequivocally very bad and naive

def when compared with this http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/03/independent-scotland-bitcoin-testbed

Speaking through a robot from Sydney at the Financial Times's Camp Alphaville conference in London, Guy Debelle argued that the experience would be similar to Scotland's own period of free banking in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the country's banks were given the power to issue their own currencies.

^ totally thought that was a lagoon joke sentence

its very out there

No-one else finds the 'Oldest Trick In The Book' thing misogynistic?

wee bit

no doubt this has been all over facebook but a glaswegian friend just texted me this one: "i'm leaving you!" "wait.... i'm pregnant!"

ah i see that the Official Worst Article in the World has used this as its lede; i will now slink off to that benighted hole i call my home

there was a suggestion that scotland would run a currency board ala isle of man/channel islands

effectively the same diff as just using the pound no

yes, it's one way of doing it. scottish economy is so interwoven w/ the rest of the uk I wonder how big a problem it wld really be

Taking that as a given, if an independent Scotland were to get into serious financial difficulty, would the rest of Britain end up bailing it out and under what conditions? That turn of events would be politically difficult for almost everyone I'd imagine.

have to babysit the royal babies until its paid off

Not sure if stirmonster posts to ILE - really liked this account of his shift from no to yes:
http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/05/keith-mcivor-optimo-independence-offers-the-possibility-to-start-again/

wonder what the turn out is going to be like for this

I think maybe 80%

.scot might be made redundant if the Scottish referendum on independence succeeds as Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and get its own two letter country code top-level domain (ccTLD)

.sc/.sd/.sl/.so/.st already taken tho

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-turnout

.ce

eh, in what way?

To annoy some bigoted twats and maybe help to drag them into the 21st century?

.aa or .ab are free (for Alba)

.aa would be appropriate maybe because ah no, won't do that joke.

If Scotland renames itself Alba, it will see almost the same rate of use as Eire when referring to Ireland. Not that this is a problem. Alba is sort of cute.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/scottish-independence-david-cameron-no-campaign-windows-8

Does anyone outside the UK actually care that much about this? Like I don't think anyone in Britain would be too bothered if Catalunya or Texas or wherever became independent

Voted Scotland/yes btw

I suspect there are a lot of Anglophiles over here going 'oh noes.' (Of course, I did say Anglophiles.)

I find it a little sad, it's like when a couple who was really cute together breaks up

Quite some attention for this in Holland. Because we're neighbours I suppose. And for the lols.

Knee-jerk non-UK/N vote, with about as much knowledge as the non-UK/Y people have afaict

(preferring to err on the side of not making radical changes to the status quo, at least concerning a liberal democracy that has been together for centuries)

not very liberal or very democratic tbf

would like to hear how/why foreigners feel nostalgia for ~britain~ or the uk gov

will this vote somehow lead to James McAvoy doing a nonshitty movie once in awhile?

so how long before the Welsh are like "you know what we don't like the English either"

nostalgia

Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save The King.

english-born population in scotland is about 8% of the total and in wales about 20%

^ as an englishman living in scotland i've been wondering abt that - and abt how we will be perceived in a independent scotland. may you live in interesting times eh

would like to hear how/why foreigners feel nostalgia for ~britain~ or the uk gov

Took up white man's burden, civilized my people iirc

well yeah you can see why I'm a little bemused

xp there are twice as many scottish born ppl living in england than the reverse, idk how much change there'd be

not very liberal or very democratic tbf

Oh, come on! compared to who?

so how long before the Welsh are like "you know what we don't like the English either"

That's much less likely to happen. Not because the Welsh love the English, just other stuff.

xp to rephrase then: the fact that "liberal democracy" may be one of the less shitty forms of political organization human beings have managed thus far in our history doesn't really make it much to get excited about imo

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-poll-no-vote-lead

I'll agree with that x-post

Questions for people who've been following this more closely than me:
If an independent Scotland is outside of the EU (initially, at least) what would that mean for Scottish people already living and working in EU countries? Would they still have the right to be there?
Also, how would things work in terms of British passports and Scottish passports? If you were a Scot living in (for example) Paris at the time of independence, would you have to apply for a Scottish passport in order to get back home again or could you still travel on a British passport? In fact, would Scottish people living in England have to choose if they were Scottish or 'British' (what would that even mean any more?)? And what about English people living in Scotland?

uk govt is v centralized & has seen v little significant reform for a long time. there are more or less the same number of mps now as there were 300 years ago, and since then suffrage has been greatly extended and the population has gone up by about ten times.

As a Scot living in England, aiui I will not be Scottish next week in the event of a Yes vote. I think I could potentially obtain a Scottish passport but that isn't clear - the proposal has dealt with Brits living in Scotland and said they will get a Scottish passport in addition to the UK one.

Xpost

English people living in Scotland will get Scottish passports, because they will be Scottish.

The theory is that after the vote we would be independent in 18months (right?) And that would be enough time to negotiate Scotland's position in the EU, so there would be no overlap.

can see no reason why Scots living outside of Scotland will not be able to apply for a Scottish passport

or lack of overlap. you know what I mean - no point where Scots are not members of the EU.

is there a good web site that summarizes the most common/best arguments pro and con? i mean, for an american doofus like myself.

Well neither do I but I have seen nothing on it - but it wouldn't actually be any use, unless you wanted a clean passport and a dirty one. xpost

the uk is unusually undemocratic because it has been unusually stable for so long. there has been no occasion to reform, it's all been done piecemeal & w/out an overarching vision

i don't think it's only about that - central government has been steadily swallowing up previously regional powers since the 1980s at least

On a vaguely related subject - do you Irish people need passports to travel to Britain and do British people need passports to travel to Ireland or do we have some kind of arrangement in place?

It's difficult to suggest a site because like any other polarising event the neutral is viewed as biased by both sides.

there are no passport checks driving between the Republic and Northern Ireland that i've ever seen, sure it was different pre '97

xxxp I guess I wasn't thinking of centralizing as reform but obviously it is. I've seen politicians opining about the strengthening of the PM at the expense of the cabinet too. you could probably make a case for the constitution being responsible for the relative mildness of british political culture

centralization of state and parties has been a v. anti-democratic force in general i think, certainly it's the single biggest stake driven thru the Labour party's corpse

One more question: after partition, were people in Northern Ireland entitled to have an Irish passport instead of / as well as a British one (e.g. a nationalist born in Derry before Ireland was split in two and who considered himself Irish, not British)? And if they were, is that still true today? And if it is still true today, does that mean a footballer from Belfast could choose if they want to play for Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?
(sorry for derailing this a bit, but I'm looking for precedents to get a sense of what is likely to happen)

what's the ideological basis for scottish expatriates not having a vote?

no representation without taxation

Basically. People who bought a house the week before last get to vote.

if expatriates were allowed to vote, do you think they'd favor yes or no?

i know of at least one expat Yesh vote

scottish identity does not yet formally exist so exactly who would fall into this category is unclear, residency (+british passport) is the only way that makes sense imo, doesn't seem to have been especially contentious

football rules shd've sufficed for Scottish identity

scottish identity does not yet formally exist ??? is this true? braveheart lied to me.

or english identity obv

obv any kind of geographic/ethnic identity is problematic but does scottish identity exist any less than irish identity or german identity?

Not formally. How would you determine who is Scottish enough to vote, legally?

someone born in Scotland?

They could have been born to English parents and never lived there, equally you could have people born elsewhere who have grown up there but moved away recently. The former would be included, the latter excluded.

I believe that anyone born in Northern Ireland is entitled to both UK and Irish passports.

is there any other "country" in the world where naturalization/suffrage is entirely dependent upon current residency? like, it seems unique?

(nb i think it's a pretty great idea to base the vote entirely in current residency - it just seems unusual to me)

isn't this v similar to the quebec referendum?

Yeah, without checking a source, I'm fairly sure current residency is the criterion for someone to vote in a referendum on Quebec sovereignty.

It's surely the criterion for voting in a provincial election. I don't see why a referendum would be different.

Pretty sure the Sunday Times published the one poll putting the Yes campaign in the lead to freak everyone else out of their complacency. Latest poll has a six point lead for No which I'd partly put down to the prospect of shit getting real for some of the undecideds. Certainly not from the brilliant performance of the No campaign at any rate.

Newsnight just reported both Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland have confirmed in the last few minutes they will move their headquarters out of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote.

Roylol Bank

it's easy to obtain an irish passport for anyone of the irish diaspora b/c ireland wants their tourist dollars (and by some standard's it's underpopulated/declining birth rate). i don't know if scotland would need or want to establish anything similar.

Listen, Scottish Yes voters, the banks can move their headquarters anyway. In fact they might anyway in response to "political instability."

Don't be fooled.

Amazed that two banks majority owned by the British government would want to move their HQ out of what would become an entirely different tax base.

Lloyds are already headquartered in London. Perhaps they mean they'll move the headquarters of the Bank of Scotland section their subsidiary HBOS to London?

hbos is in leeds

Pretty sure the Sunday Times published the one poll putting the Yes campaign in the lead to freak everyone else out of their complacency.

Would imagine the Scots might find that a little patronising.

Lloyds is registered in Scotland, even though the HQ is London.

Scotland has long been a nation. We shall soon find out whether its citizens now wish that nation to become a state. I hope they do. It will not only open up new opportunities for their own country but will break up the atrophied, decaying British state and reduce its efficacy as a US vassal. Hence the appeals from Obama and Hillary Clinton to vote ‘No’, a sentiment Blair fully shares but dare not admit to, fearing that his intervention might tip the balance in the opposite direction.

The key to allowing England to succeed the UK in international forums is provided by the break-up of the USSR in 1991. Russia and the other former republics of the USSR wrote a joint letter to the UN secretary general stating that Russia should take the USSR’s place on all UN bodies and that it would assume the USSR’s obligations internationally. This letter was circulated to UN member states and no opposition was recorded. Russia thus succeeded the USSR in 1993.

This precedent means that Scotland holds a strong hand in negotiations with England: it could offer to support England’s claim to be the successor state of the UK on the Security Council and to be classified as a nuclear weapon state in exchange for England’s backing for EU and Nato membership for Scotland, a timetable for removing Trident and agreement to a common currency area. Scottish independence would enable Scotland to join Norway and Denmark as independent non-nuclear-weapon European Nato states; it would also help to free England from its nuclear pretensions and its role as America’s poodle. Both new states inhabiting the island of Great Britain would benefit.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/lrb-scotland/reflections-on-the-independence-referendum

Sorta lol at guy's letter first citing the issue of American billionaires imperiously building golf courses. I mean it's an atrocity but he has energy policy in there too I guess.

Also wasn't that trump? He isn't a billionaire.

Ha iguess he is

Would imagine the Scots might find that a little patronising.

Actually that's a terribly phrased post from me - I don't really think there's much of a direct causal link between the Sunday Times article and a regained lead for the No campaign. The polls have moved around quite a lot as opinion polls tend to, but the Sunday Times as a Murdoch paper obviously went big on that particular poll for reasons other than just newsworthiness and its main aim was to shock people in England and particularly in Westminster, where attitudes have been remarkably relaxed until last weekend. Obviously I don't mean the Scots in general have been complacent in all this.

"Shit getting real for some of the undecideds" is a pretty crass way of putting it (probably shouldn't post about politics on the way back from the pub in future). I tend to assume that enough undecideds in most elections will ultimately end up favouring the status quo because that's how it always seems to go, but who knows in this instance. I doubt many of them are directly influenced by a Sunday Times piece though.

Scottish Sun is broadly pro-Yes, and Salmond, like any political leader in Britain, has been courting Murdoch for years. Murdoch has also made pro-Independence tweets. Obv the Sunday Times may be speaking more to an English, pro-No audience, but trailing a Yes poll lead also sucks up to the boss, never a bad idea at News International.

A victory for Independence would also obv have very complicated implications for the BBC, which I'm sure is a part of Murdoch's calculations.

Regardless of any political implications, it would have been crazy for the Sunday Times not to splash on that poll once they'd seen how it turned out.

ie I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about political intent from the fact they went big on it.

guardian leading today with screamer of a headline "MORTGAGE RISK TO UK IF SCOTLAND VOTES YES" or some shit

this is truly the biggest gun a british newspaper could wheel out against a yes vote

It's not clear from splash headline, but it's about mortgages for Scots, not the rest of the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-mortgage-lenders-yes-vote

Worth remembering that the poll was of about 1000 people and conducted by YouGov, which is generally not the most reliable - unless they've changed their methodology recently.

Also worth remembering that all these polls are fairly useless, except maybe for tracking change over time (within one organisation's polls). Lack of real precedents make it impossible to judge how to weight responses.

Still confident there'll be a no vote, but that's mainly just my own hunches about human nature (trying not to be swayed by the cacophony of separatist sentiment in all social media channels).

it must be yes

Pipe down, cacophonist.

i will not be silenced

are you moving back to scotland, conrad?

who's asking

Asshoppers

I don't know

On turning into Buchanan Street the delegation was met by a man shouting “Welcome to our imperial overlords!” and playing the Imperial Death March from Star Wars through a speaker he had fastened to his bicycle.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/11/westminster-express-scotland-labour-mps

For those of us who want most of all see a genuine improvement in the system in the rest of the UK, I feel like an emphatic win for the No vote is the worst of all immediate outcomes. Luckily that looks like it won't happen.

So instead 'emphatic' it will be a small win for the "No" then?

i suspect that it will, which will be weird, because all the energy behind the Yes campaign isn't just going to go away quietly

No, but if my own experiences with feeling energised are anything to go by, it can turn into something other than purpose and vitality surprisingly quickly.

Now that everyone's got excited, No will win

fear factor always wins out and Scotland will not get any more real meaningful powers,nothing will change for the rest of us in the UK and business as usual until the EU referendum when the scare stories will re-appear but used against those using it now. Only difference is the media will be biased towards them.

Worst of all long-term outcomes = emphatic Yes, then 1997, again (eased in by the cosh coming down from business / finance)

Farrell to play role of Benjamin in the indyref Animal Farm.

(I'll be your understudy)

its spreading

http://i.imgur.com/BKZASVp.png

Ward Fowler are you yes?

yes

if the independence of scotland is a terrible idea because of the currency issue, then in catalonia it seems even worse.

whatsa difference if it's the ECB callin the shots?

Back to 52-48 to no for YouGov.

ask the greeks, Tracer.

Non UK / Y

I don't think Quebec separatists are comparable to Scotland's wanting independence, I have to say, though I guess a lot of people will assume they are.

I voted no in this thread's poll but I've heard so many things since then and now I'm too scared to vote either way. I don't feel I have enough knowledge about politics and economics to vote responsibly.
Whatever the outcome is I'll probably be disappointed. Mostly favouring independence out of sheer curiosity to see what will happen.

When is the next referendum if we don't get independence this time?

Just out of interest, have there been any polls of what the English would like the result of the referendum to be? (Not counting this poll, obviously)

Narrow win for the no team then probably. A win for the bourgeoisie, the squares, the scared, the conformed. In other words: a win for people who wouldn't in their life make a true difference for Scotland anyway.

I have several Scottish friends and seeing the hope soar within them, the sudden chance to finally materialize or contribute to independence, to self-determination, has been endearing. And not in a naive way. There's huge flocks of youngsters ready to shape their soil into a fruitful new country. It has been a huge uplifting thing to watch.

But it won't happen. Because it never does. This'll end in tears. As everything does in the UK...

if the independence of scotland is a terrible idea because of the currency issue, then in catalonia it seems even worse.

― Van Horn Street, Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:12 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

whatsa difference if it's the ECB callin the shots?

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, September 11, 2014 4:49 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ya since spain is already on the euro doesnt seem like theres really not much difference if an independent catalonia stays on the euro, its not like theyre super poor compared to the rest of spain r they

tho maybe theyre planning on having their own currency idk

Non UK / Y

I don't think Quebec separatists are comparable to Scotland's wanting independence, I have to say, though I guess a lot of people will assume they are.

― ∞, Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:04 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you are right, they aren't. quebec separatism was mainly a question of nationalism, a nationalism that is growing increasingly awkward.

i much prefer the general statement behind scotland's independence, but i believe the risk of backfiring is there and quite scary.

When is the next referendum if we don't get independence this time?

it took quebec 15 years after the first one

then they passed a law in canada that you basically cant succeed

not the right place to discuss this, but there is a few very good things about the clarity act.

I don't feel I have enough knowledge about politics and economics to vote responsibly.

gtfo then

suppose you'll have to abide by the decisions of far less responsible people then

Just out of interest, have there been any polls of what the English would like the result of the referendum to be?

Depends how you ask the question (or when you ask it, possibly)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9015374/Britain-divided-over-Scottish-independence.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/01/english-welsh-majority-against-scots-independence

I'd love to bottle the pompous complacency amongst UK colleagues, some family and acquaintances - a mix of unthought dislike of, or contempt for Scots yoked with strong feelings Scotland should NOT be independent - and spray it over Scotland on the day of voting. Not that it doesn't come across clear as day anyway, but just to be *sure*.

Give me RAG's honest doubt and confusion over cheap rhetoric like this:

Narrow win for the no team then probably. A win for the bourgeoisie, the squares, the scared, the conformed. In other words: a win for people who wouldn't in their life make a true difference for Scotland anyway.

I'm voting Yes in part because I can afford to - no kids, no mortgage, enough family and work ties to London that if it all goes tits up, I can re-locate relatively easily. But there are plenty of working families here who have very legitimate worries and concerns about their future, the future of their children and of their country. It's simple-minded to pretend or believe that there aren't merits to both the Yes and No positions. That's why I have a lot of respect for the undecideds in this case, and mistrust the utterly certain on both sides of the debate.

It feels to me like the weeks before the 1992 General Election

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROKXlvYMKQc

A Hertfordshire radio station has banned all Scottish music until after the independence referendum.

BOB FM says it is going "Scot Free" by removing artists like Paolo Nutini and Primal Scream from its playlist until after 18 September.

Better Together said it was "not the biggest issue" affecting Scotland.

A Yes Scotland spokesman said the "sound of celebration" after a Yes vote will be heard "as far as the Home Counties."

On Wednesday morning, breakfast show host Graham Mack interrupted '500 Miles' by The Proclaimers to announce the ban on Scottish music.

He said: "I've had enough of this! You'll walk 500 hundred miles, but you don't want anything to do with England? After all we've done for you!

"From now on, this radio station is banning anything Scottish, that includes music by ALL Scottish artists! Until further notice, BOB fm is now Scot Free!"

The station also created a new logo featuring the union flag without the Scottish blue.

A spokesman for Yes Scotland said: "The sound of celebration after a Yes vote next Thursday will be heard, even as far as the Home Counties, and will be music to our ears."

A spokesman for Better Together said: "In a week where major banks have said they plan to move business to England, this is probably not the biggest issue affecting people in Scotland."

Haven't Primal Scream suffered enough this week?

That reminds me, has Boab Gillespie had anything to say on the referendum? He's usually not short of opinions.

“I can’t look in terms of Scotland. It’s bigger than that,” he said.

“People in Liverpool have been hammered, Manchester and Southampton. All over.

“Everybody has been hammered, not just the Scottish.

“We can’t be nationalistic about it. Nationalism has never done it for me. It leads to fascism.

“Ultimately, someone like Alex Salmond manipulates people’s national pride and insecurities but he is obviously a power-mad kind of guy.”

I expected he'd be a No

swastika ayes basically

Not very rebellious there, eh Boab?

LOL (xp)

“Everybody has been hammered, not just the Scottish.

Aye, yer right there, Boab, we're no' the only boozers on the planet efter a'

“People in Liverpool have been hammered, Manchester and Southampton. All over.

He's right enough. I've been in the pub with him and Mani.

Is it bad to not really listen to people saying that other places are being hard done by as well? They're not the ones getting to make this choice. I'll happily support them when they get themselves the chance to do something, and I would like it if they could applaud Scotland for making the most of the opportunity put in front of them rather than going "b-b-b-but what about us?".

Re Gillespie's witterings, I don't think this is really about nationalism, it's about self-determination. Pretty sure we're going to wake up a nation of fascists next Friday morning if Scotland says yes. Power-mad Alex Salmond offered to step down if it would help, which isn't really a sign of a future dictator now, is it? http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/salmond-i-would-quit-if-it-meant-a-yes-vote-1-3514731

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/M/M014/M014390-08.jpg

I can see how old-school left-wingers who believe in the solidarity and unity of the British working class (however you define that these days) would favour a no vote fwiw, but I don't think that's what Bobby G's getting at there. In any case since when has Bobby Gillespie ever talked sense about politics?

Like, probably the most positive outcome in the event of a No vote would be for that energy to join with other left-leaning groups across the country to push for a change in the status quo that benefits the whole of the UK. Whether that would happen is a different matter, especially with the Labour Party getting in the way (either by glomming onto it and taking it over or actively standing in the way.)

Right, but there won't be a country for it to be across?

I can see how old-school left-wingers who believe in the solidarity and unity of the British working class (however you define that these days) would favour a no vote fwiw, but I don't think that's what Bobby G's getting at there.

I think that is what he's getting at.

Yes, and I'm mistaking 'No' for 'Yes', like some kind of spanner.

Bob's from a serious Old Labour background, his Dad was not so much an Old Labour dinosaur as, uh, whatever came before the dinosaurs.

Bobby's dad lost the 1988 Govan bi-election to Jim Sillars (who abandoned Labour to join the Nats in the early 80s).

Indeed and he was one of the most inept candidates I've ever seen in my life... and that's by Scottish Labour standards, and that's as low as you can go frankly.

I can see how old-school left-wingers who believe in the solidarity and unity of the British working class (however you define that these days) would favour a no vote fwiw

Judging by my Yes leaning FB friends, and one (ex?) ILXor is most vocal in this respect, this is completely arse about and a Yes vote is the only option for the proper left wing as anyone voting No is clearly "a Tory".

I have seen a smattering of this kind of thing from the Yes campaign and it drives me pretty nuts, even though I understand how strong feelings are:

http://www.facebook.com/375717285904621/posts/398295893646760

The station also created a new logo featuring the union flag without the Scottish blue.

― paolo, Friday, September 12, 2014 4:43 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh no are they gonna have to change the flag

Pretty sure we're going to wake up a nation of fascists next Friday morning if Scotland says yes

There's a "not" missing here, I assume?

i guess the downside to voting Fuck the UK is you have to share a bed with nitwits like Jacobyte MacLachlainn Lvss

Ha, shit, aye.

^ also my journey to a yes vote in three words

I can see how old-school left-wingers who believe in the solidarity and unity of the British working class (however you define that these days) would favour a no vote fwiw

I can *see* it, I just think it requires a bigger leap of faith even than the idea of independent-Scotland-as-socialist-beacon

socialism is internationalist or it's nothing, within that context independent nation-states are an irrelevance imo but tactical lulz are worth something

lol timing of boris johnson's selection. has salmond mentioned him yet.

#ayefacts

fun to see farage arguing so vigorously against scottish independence

https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/1c896b21226115bf3eaf71a5d60369e1/tumblr_nbqwkgCkGb1qznhs5o1_500.jpg

impartial BBC currently speculating on the Queen's opinion

i feeling is that yes will win and that it won't be a marginal victory. my prediction is that yes will win by 56% to 44%.

my*

Other way round I'd say

too close to call, would be "fun"

literal dead heat would be pure joeks

Scottish equiv. of hanging chads - hingin' chads, i suppose. Didn't they make a complete bollocks of the last elections to the Scottish Parliament?

I'm coming round to the idea that a yes vote for Scotland could be a serious win for the Conservatives. Mark Millar (the comics guy) posted on his FB about how he was now undecided and leaning towards no (while, coincidentally, still being painted as a definite yes) and he made a seemingly ludicrous assertion:

But again, can we please stop this dumbed down notion that independence would mean NO MORE TORIES? Or that Scotland never gets the government we voted for and this is why we need to cut ourselves off from Westminster? First of all, Scotland has had the government it voted for over thirteen of the past seventeen years. Two of the last three British Prime Ministers have been Scottish. Even the Thatcher years, a time not traditionally associated with right wing votes in Scotland, the Conservative share of the vote was within a whisker of Labour’s in both 1979 and 1983. Looking back over the forties, fifties and much of the sixties Scotland OVERWHELMINGLY backed the Conservatives and Conservative support here is rock solid all the way back to the Whig-era in the middle of the nineteenth century. The notion that Scotland is any less right wing than England is a complete fallacy.

So I did the sort of thing I usually do, and checked the facts. And although he overplays the hand more than a little he's not wrong in principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#UK_Parliament.2C_Westminster

1945: Lab 47.9% of vote, 52% of seats; Con 40.3% of votes, 38% of seats
1950: Lab 46.2% of vote, 52% of seats; Con 44.8% of vote, 44% of seats
1951: Lab 47.9% of vote, 49% of seats; Con 48.6% of votes, 49% of seats
1955: Lab 46.7% of vote, 48% of seats; Con 50.1% of vote, 51% of seats
1959: Lab 46.7% of vote, 54% of seats; Con 47.3% of votes, 44% of seats
1964: Lab 48.7% of vote, 61% of seats; Con 40.6% of vote, 34% of seats
1966: Lab 49.9% of vote, 65% of seats; Con 37.6% of votes, 28% of seats
1970: Lab 44.5% of vote, 62% of seats; Con 38% of vote, 33% of seats
1974 #1: Lab 36.6% of vote, 56% of seats; Con 32.9% of votes, 30% of seats
1974 #2: Lab 36.6% of vote, 58% of seats; Con 24.7% of vote, 23% of seats
1979: Lab 41.6% of vote, 62% of seats; Con 31.4% of votes, 31% of seats
1983: Lab 35.1% of vote, 57% of seats; Con 28.4% of vote, 29% of seats
1987: Lab 42.4% of vote, 69% of seats; Con 24% of votes, 14% of seats
1992: Lab 39% of vote, 68% of seats; Con 25.6% of vote, 15% of seats
1997: Lab 45.6% of vote, 78% of seats; Con 17.5% of votes, 0% of seats
2001: Lab 43.3% of vote, 77% of seats; Con 15.6% of vote, 0% of seats
2005: Lab 39.5% of vote, 69% of seats; Con 15.8% of vote, 0% of seats
2010: Lab 42% of vote, 69% of seats; Con 16.7% of votes, 0% of seats

Now whereas they're not going to win any election soon a move to proportional representation (or even the current Scottish parliament model) in an independent Scotland would see them return to a position of relative influence and be the kingmaker in a hung parliament in the short term; in the longer term with a bit of rebranding and when the SNP become just another party I think there are votes to be won as Scotlnad becomes two-party. It's only in the Blair era they started to fall away seriously; and just as Thatcher will inevitably become something only old people talk about it's not inconceivable that the choice of a new generation could be Tory.

Yep, I think they would have greater influence again. Separating them from the Westminster party (and its toxic brand) would also allow Scottish Tories to move more to the Left and better appeal to the centre ground in Scotland. Just as Labour in Westminster has to be (or feels it has to be) more rightwards than it would naturally be.

And in the 2010 election, there were 412,855 Scottish votes for the Tory party - not many fewer than the 491,386 for the SNP.

Scotland has a fine tradition of importing its right wing blowhards to England - to the Tory Party or the media or both - let's hope that is not adversely affected by a Yes vote.

I'm still lost on how Scotland is already a country.

If Scotland wins independence, would it become a constituent country like Australia or Canada? Would there be a border patrol set up at Gretna?

And lol @ "the better Scandinavian countries".

A constituent country? Whassat?

Yep, I think they would have greater influence again. Separating them from the Westminster party (and its toxic brand) would also allow Scottish Tories to move more to the Left and better appeal to the centre ground in Scotland. Just as Labour in Westminster has to be (or feels it has to be) more rightwards than it would naturally be.

― stet, Monday, September 15, 2014 9:31 AM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah what youd see is prob a realignment with distinct scottish parties

I assume everyone is aware that the old nickname for the SNP was the Tartan Tories?

A constituent country? Whassat?

Something I read during my extensive late-night research on the topic at Wikipedia.org.

Ah, just did the same, Aus and Canuckia are not constituent countries though?

Whoops, the four countries of the United Kingdom are "constituent" countries.

Australia, et. al are your run-of-the-mill constitutional monarchies.

I assume that will be Scotland's fate as they're sticking with the ghastly Windsors

I mean, Texas was a country before it joined the union, but we don't call it a country anymore. (They do, but that's a whole other deal.)

Ahem the real old nickname was the Scottish Nose Pickers

I'm usually all for independence and going out after it on your own, but in this case, I just don't see what the point is, especially if you're going to keep the pound notes with the Queen on 'em.

we have some banknotes free of the queen atm, freedom is already ours

http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknoteapp/img/clyde20.jpg

http://www.gmb.org.uk/newsroom/snp-betray-scottish-blacklisted-workers-on-dundee-contract

SNP still not afraid to fuck the workforce and union members over. It's alleged they colluded with the Tories to achieve it in this instance, but I can't find the individual voting stats. But this is directly contrary to Scottish Government guidelines and to a Dundee council vote as recently as April.

I think the Daily Show segment I saw on this didn't really help by talking about it in the same breath as countries gaining independence from the British empire, where Scotland and England were by contrast joined by an act of union. The word "independence" has all those connotations, which makes the wording of the referendum look all freedom-loving and positive.

I assume everyone is aware that the old nickname for the SNP was the Tartan Tories?

was that not coined by the labour party because the SNP helped bring down the labour govt. for shafting them over the devo referendum?

It seems to me that up in Scotland the best way to win votes is to paint the opposition as "tories" even if they have no policies in common. Especially in a country known for "voting for a monkey in a red rosette".

The Labour party have far more in common with the tories when it comes down to it and that explains why so many of you trad labour guys are voting yes to escape it.

I had an uncle who once called the SNP as scottish national protestants.
why do scots love sectarianism so much?

If there is a Yes, the post-mortem is going to be pretty damning on Cameron both for agreeing to a single question *and* for the wording of that question. Xp to Alba

http://www.scotbanks.org.uk/banknoteapp/img/clyde20.jpg

putting putin on the money doesnt make me feel better abt this

Countries: It's taken me a while to get my head around Parliament – the one in Westminster – as the legislature for the United Kingdom of Great Britain, but the UKGB is run by the queen of one of those countries. Like if NAFTA was a real place, but was always ruled by the Emperor of Mexico?

But you gotta have your own currency or else you look funny.

http://nongsride.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/tumblr_m6canmQSIE1qawmj6o1_400.jpg

Except for you, Ecuador. You guys get a pass.

The Union of the crowns came before the Act of union, pp. England's royal line ended, so it took the Scots King James.

I know I sound like a certain ILXor from one of the better Scandinavian countries, so I'll pipe down.

was that not coined by the labour party because the SNP helped bring down the labour govt. for shafting them over the devo referendum?

... the Tartan Tories, that is. I'm not sure, I thought a lost of the early shakers and movers in the SNP (people like Winnie Ewing and Gordon Wilson) were fairly right wing? Also, early on, they seemed to have a lot of support in areas that probably voted Tory previously, rural areas.

I'm sure some tories cant bring themselves to vote Labour and vice versa.
SNP certainly are to the left of Labour in my lifetime. Why did the Tories win so many seats in Scotland until the 1950s when the Labour Party was formed BY a Scot? I find that odd. Were the tories not that extreme until Thatcher or is there some weird reason that Scots voted tory like sectarianism? The reason I ask is because whenever Scots tories have ever appeared on TV they always call themselves Conservative & Unionist Party.

Winnie Ewing was for a while the MP for Hamilton, a place where you'd be hard pressed to find any Tories. The only Tory area round that way would be the fancier parts of Bothwell (Silverwells etc.).

The Tories in Scotland were called the Unionist party until the 1950s, yep.

the "Unionist" bit in the Conservative party's name derives from Anglo-Irish politics but it's not like that has had no influence in Scotland. the Conservatives have also always had big support in rural areas - a lot of Scotland is/was rural areas. and the pre-1979 Tory party was radically different to the post-79 party but not in all the ways you might expect

feels like in particular the early roll-out of the Poll Tax has been used as a Bloody Sunday-esque rallying point for Scot Nats

would Scottish Gaelic become an official language of an independent Scotland?

pondering what sort of impact on other regions of the UK a "No" vote followed by Devo Max powers will have

probably sets a more feasible/useful precedent for bits of england at least

i can see it stoking a case, yeah, but i can also see central gov resisting concessions to other regions pretty hard

I don't hold out much hope, I'm just waiting for the EU to swallow up the whole island

well let's consider the Tories riding to an overall majority next year on the back of a Scottish "No" vote and a shitty opposition, then holding a referendum on EU membership, then...

First of all, Scotland has had the government it voted for over thirteen of the past seventeen years.

Interesting period to choose, in that it starts immediately after 18 straight years of Tory rule during which their support in Scotland dropped from 31 to 17%.

It's fairer to say Scotland often gets the government it voted for, but only when England agrees.

Cant see devo max happening since none of the parties promised it even in the panic. Once Scotland votes no you will see tory and labour mp's real colours and they wont want their powers taken from them at Westminster and Labour doesn't want to lose Scots mp's votes on English matters so they wont give Scotland meaningful powers. The power to remove bedroom tax seems to be the only one on offer. Is that enough to bribe them to vote no?

It's fairer to say Scotland often gets the government it voted for, but only when England agrees.

Postwar, if we have to break it down in this way, Scottish voters got the government they, but not England, voted for in 1951, 1964, 1974 and 2005.

the "Unionist" bit in the Conservative party's name derives from Anglo-Irish politics but it's not like that has had no influence in Scotland.

For a start, where d'you reckon we got Unionists from?

ha, yeah I had a hunch about that one.

http://i.imgur.com/GBPnUOV.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Unionist_Party

"Can we please stop this dumbed down notion that independence would mean NO MORE TORIES?...The notion that Scotland is any less right wing than England is a complete fallacy."

The thing is, it's all very well talking about how strong the Tories were in Scotland in the 50s, 60s, even (relatively speaking) during the Thatcher years, but the figures upthread clearly show that in every election in the last 20 years the Tories have barely got 1 in 6 votes in Scotland and Labour has two or three times as many as the Tories. Which seems to show quite convincingly that Scotland is less right wing than England and that the Tories aren't going to sweep to power there any time soon.

Why did the Tories win so many seats in Scotland until the 1950s when the Labour Party was formed BY a Scot?

That's not that great a reason.

These guys think everyone will be living on £10 giros if the monarchy is removed.
One hopes they're not representative of a large part of the Scottish electorate
What does "we are the people" mean?

http://youtu.be/pmGjiokfQ2A

But independence isn't for the next 20 years, it's for good. I don't agree with the idea that one nation can be intrinsically more leftwing than another.

x-post

nations have different social and political traditions that map onto the left-right spectrum and mean some are less likely to be, say, instinctive free marketeers than others

basic example: mainstream politics in the US and most of western Europe can't really be conceptually mapped onto one another, no US tradition of important Social Democratic parties etc

As far as excluding Devo-Max from the poll, I can;t think of any other choice. After such a vote the question of Scotland's independence would still be unanswered, and another referendum inevitable. It has to be settled, one way or another.

When it comes to questions like that I'd have expect basic political self-preservation instincts to kick in and at least punt it 10-15 years down the road. (By which time there'd be less oil and less NHS to worry about anyway)

think "strychnine" is v. wrong about lack of concessions following a No vote

Tories aren't going to sweep to power there any time soon.

It might not be the Tories, but when you've got 61% of people in Scotland saying there need to be tougher rules in allowing immigration from other EU countries (74% when you exclude don't knows), for example, there'll be politicians who can fill gaps.

yeah, but they'll have a different name!

But immigration is supposed to increase in an independent Scotland, that's the one thing all sides agree on. It's only the size of the increase that's in doubt I think. No say it needs another Edinburgh every 5 years, Yes say every 10?

Tell that to the population!

We could use another Edinburgh. It gets busy at weekends.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

tenderhooks

Alba, it's fairly clear that all the Tory voters disappeared like morning mist over the last 15 years. There's just no basis for speculating on what new policies might energise the future of the SNP, to whom we can all wish good cheer as they celebrate their 15th year.

They didn't all disappear: first past the post makes it look like that, but as I said upthread, they got 412,855 Scottish votes in the 2010 election, to the SNP's 491,386.

My general point, though, is just that this is for ever (probably). People seem to be saying "oh, the 1950s was years ago" like a nation's political journey is now over and its leftwing leaning set in stone. I've even heard people trying to persuade people to vote yes on the grounds that they think the Tories will probably get in 2015, like the next fucking general election is a reason to split from the rest of the UK. There are arguments I respect for independence, but that is not one of them.

Seeing no further than who wins the next election is just the usual horse race type of thinking, but presumably, if Scottish Tories ever win control of the Scottish Parliament, then it's because they did very well in the preceding election. Which is why you have elections, innit?

People seem to be saying "oh, the 1950s was years ago" like a nation's political journey is now over and its leftwing leaning set in stone.

It's not really a like-for-like comparison here. The Unionists of the 1950s that were popular in Scotland are not the modern Conservatives. The 1950 manifesto included commitments to build much more social housing, to keep the nationalised coal industry, to maintain Fisheries protectionism and increase home rule in Scotland (but it did promise to stop any further nationalisation). That manifesto would probably find a lot of support in Scotland even today.

What has never had significant support in Scotland is free-market Thatcher and post-Thatcher Conservatism. It's not so much that Scotland changed and moved away from England, it feels more like the opposite, and Westminster might have started to go places where 50.01% of Scots don't want to follow.

On the rUK side of things, this is fascinating:

Without those bloody Scotch MPs, a number of Westminster votes would have turned out for the better. (A surprisingly small number of votes, right enough)

Er link

persuade people to vote yes on the grounds that they think the Tories will probably get in 2015

while the latest scottish labour no letter to voters signed by johann lamont and gordon brown consists mainly of a list of supposed SNP policy gaps as a reason to vote no (if you don't know)

there's as much equation of independence with SNP as there is union with the tories

Err, I'm not ranking the two campaigns here – the No campaign is fucking awful. I'm talking about whether Scotland should be independent.

Good piece from Billy Bragg

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/scottish-nationalism-british-westminster-class

I know you're not backing the no campaign alba! just saying yes there's a stramash of skewed representations designed to motivate from individuals and campaigns alike that some voters will hear as salient and convincing alas

after independence it was all sweetness and joy for us I highly recommend it

is this pretty much matching what people are feeling in their waters? http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

Paddy Power are paying out on a No vote already but that's partly a publicity stunt, i think.

Betfair, rather than Paddy Power, apparently.

betfair too http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/uk-scotland-independence-gambling-idUKKBN0HB1E720140916

Bookmakers sometimes pay out early on sports events when they consider the result a foregone conclusion, deciding that the publicity they generate is worth the risk should there be a surprise turnaround.

"We've decided that 'No' is most likely to be the winning vote in 3 days' time, so we've put our money where our mouth is," online betting specialist Betfair said.

Sportsbook is expected to provide about 9 per cent of Betfair’s revenue this year, against 62 per cent from exchange. For a single novelty sportsbook market, the cost to the company of paying out early will be somewhere between negligible and nil.

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/09/16/1971862/no-betfair-has-not-just-called-the-scottish-referendum/

twats

This piece by Ewan Morrison is not quite where I am - I'll still be voting Yes unless something changes drastically in the next 48 hours, but I'm not fully convinced by the campaign at all. I'm just more unconvinced by Better Together and that doesn't feel like strong enough justification for such a huge political decision. I really wish Devo Max was a real option and not just some half-arsed emergency concession as a result of the status quo being threatened. There are too many problems with the Yes campaign for me to outright ignore, and the feeling I've had over the past few weeks is that raising these problems - or even just going on social media to see them be raised - only to be dismissed and shut down by independence supporters makes me hugely uncomfortable.

http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/

I've seen this graphic circulating about - a screengrab from the Twitter of popular Indy blog Wings Over Scotland. I've seen so much blind adulation and support for this guy's work and yet here's an example of blatant transphobia and I've not seen nearly enough people call this kind of thing out.

There's something really horrible about a voice who seems so prominent in the campaign being so against the idea of identity as self-determined.

http://athousandflowersblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screen-shot-2013-09-01-at-22-14-10.png

i thought most everyone on both sides recognised that he was a terrible guy

How I wish my experience of people reacting to that guy was the same.

He also did a piece a few years ago blaming Liverpool fans for Hillsborough. He's an odious character.

http://wosland.podgamer.com/no-justice-for-the-96/

Wings is a nob, but he does do some good stuff.

The Ewan Morrison piece is flawed in its premise that the Yes campaign is akin to the old authoritarian left. It's a genuinely autonomous grassroots movement. His Judean Peoples Front stuff is not the vibrant and diverse movement I've been part of. Methinks he's just in the huff.

It's the payoff I don't really get. "I have to vote No, because what if I voted Yes and then things got messy and political? That'd be embarrassing on the world stage".

Guy wants a new socialist utopia, isn't prepared to risk snark from The Economist to get it.

That was rather hastily composed. I do think Wings has done some good journalism and analysis, but his odious opinions on various things have made me very uncomfortable.

Morrison also seems to think that we should be discussing issues that are more pertinent to an election, i.e. party policy. Nobody is shutting down debate - that's the complete opposite of my experience. The focus now, however, is on the why and how of independence.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/09/15/david-camerons-open-letter-to-the-people-of-scotland/

i know it's childish but lol spectator political columnist and telegenic gen-y panellist "isabel hardman"

lot of discussion about this in my (american, with one mancunian) office

americans are worried that removing the blue will ruin the union jack

I don't disagree that the Yes campaign is a grassroots movement but my experience with Yes voters - in real life, online, via all sources of media - is that their militancy regarding dissent from within their own supporters is troubling. It might be a diverse movement but a lot of my own experience is that Yes voters like diversity but not so much when it differs from their own vision of Scotland. I'm seeing plenty of debate about why independence is vital - and I don't disagree it is - but the questions of what will happen not being up for answer is not helping. As Morrison points out, the differing visions of Scotland can't all be compatible, and what Yes should have focussed on is how localised government strengthens democracy regardless of your own political persuasion, not perpetuating dreams of Tory silence in Scotland.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Better Together will shit themselves when they see this.

ILX is probably the perfect Yes demographic … aside from not living in Scotland for the most part.

phew!

scotland / n 3

NAME AND SHAME!!!

there are 32 scottish ilxors?

Including sockpuppets?

scotchpuppets

Scotland is the most highly represented per captita nationality on ILX. Isn't that a given at this point?

how many scottish ilxors would there be in an ideal world?

exactly as many as there currently are :)

scots and lots

treesh how do u feel abt scottish independence in general

lol that highest representation for 'no' vote is uk other than scotland

depends on whether it would be an economic disaster, as some have projected. emotionally, i think it's a good idea. it seems better for scotland to not be represented by a conservative prime minister or to have to maintain some kind of association with the royal family.

treesh for some reason they want to keep the queen as their sovereign

ew

lots of basic financal reasons for the rest of the uk to be wary of scotland leaving such as sterling crash predicted by societe generale's chief economist the other day

very much in favour of scottish independence right now even taking account of those risks, and the risks of political and eventual economic disaster caused by heightened chance of a remainder uk living eu, because the last few weeks have highlighted how decrepit and risible the current constitutional settlement is

#leaving#

in the event of a no vote does Scotland have a Pearse figure ready to push things along

polls results very much in character then

Wow, I'm glad I've kept my trap shut as a No voter then. In fact, I may even have voted twice (in the poll, obv), as I was sure I had already voted then voted again. Still, it'll all be over soon...

Voting in polls twice is a no-no

My brother eventually decided to vote Yes, though last time I was up he spent most of an evening in the pub decrying the various arseholes (online for the most part) who are campaigining for Yes, or else, standing outside the BBC in Glasgow (he works at the BBC) calling for journalists' heads. Among actual nationalists, as opposed to people voting Yes, there are definitely some seriously dodgy types but, hopefully, they'll back in their boxes after the vote is finished, however it goes.

... so that means I only know one definite No voter out of everyone I know in Scotland... oh hold on, there's another, but she's English so whaddaya expect <--- blatantly anti-English remark, phone the newspapers

treesh for some reason they want to keep the queen as their sovereign

― Nothing less than the Spirit of the Age (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 17 September 2014 02:17 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Courting the hun vote. You can be independent but still love the queen and hate the Catholics.

think my family are all voting no. they want an independent Scotland but have no faith in Salmond etc being able to deliver it, can't wait for this to be all over so i don't have to hear another extended rant from my dad about "those useless fucks in Holyrood" - oh who am i kidding it's not going to stop is it :/

it seems better for scotland to not be represented by a conservative prime minister

It is totally possible that, after the next election, they won't be, even as part of the UK. As Alba has noted, this does not seem like a sensible reason for secession.

it is a reason for some people but agree it's the most myopic of reasons

have no faith in Salmond etc being able to deliver it

gotta presume in the event of yes it won't be salmond delivering it per se but holyrood and westminster hashing it out as amicably as poss right?

My immediately family are all voting no and in my parent's village there is 1(one) Yes voter. I'm not suggesting polling companies don't understand their business but I think there's a real danger of confirmation bias in Greater Glasgow/Greater Edinburgh results being extrapolated across the country.

Personally, if I still lived in Scotland I would vote no as well. I believe in looking at what you know and understand and judging on that - if they've got it right then you can have faith the rest of it is right. If it's wrong then how can you believe any of the bits you know less well? I know defence (policy, planning, procurement, strategy) very well indeed and the stated policy shows a relative lack of understanding of how defence strategy is build up, is unaffordable and undeliverable in either short or probably medium term and requires trades against many of the other policies in order to stand a fighting chance (no pun intended) of ever achieving them.

but holyrood and westminster hashing it out as amicably as poss

Statement by AD on the radio this morning that three quarters of it is dependent on AS/Yes getting exactly what they want in negotiations - I can believe it based on how many times I've heard "it's in everybody's interest this happens" when the people they'd be negotiating with say that it won't.

If I still lived in Scotland I would not be putting a No poster in my window. I'd be fine telling close friends I was a No supporter, but even if the reports of aggro are overplayed, I just couldn't be arsed with worrying about what people would think of me. Maybe if I could find a Labour-specific "No" poster I'd be OK with that.

yeah seriously. "holyrood and westminster hashing it out as amicably as poss" is a preposterous assumption.

scotland will be negotating with a weakend/constrained UK govt. so even assuming the govt wanted to behave amicably (or "sensibly", for certain definitions of sensible), which they won't, they'll be under colossal pressure from UKIP voters (and a lot of other people) to resist things like currency union, and to extract concessions.

basic question: given the concern about how advisible currency union would be (assuming it were possible), why haven't yes campaigns ever proposed scotland would have its own currency?

I think people are fine with formal currency union with the rest of the UK in principle. What's not advisable is continuing for more than a temporary period with unofficially sharing the pound (with no monetary control).

The problem is, Westminster would have to agree to that currency union. The Yes campaign insists that Westminister is bluffing about not allowing it, and that it would be in everyone's interests to agree a currency union post-independence.

The Yes campaign could of course say we'll try to join the euro instead, or have an independent Scottish currency, but the former is politically unpopular and the latter probably a bad idea full stop.

Most likely scenario seems to be that Scotland will continue to use the pound, but without a currency union. I think rUK would probably be prepared to trade a currency union for continuing use of Faslane as a submarine base and guaranteed unimpeded access to it - it could be permanently sequestered territory like Guantanamo Bay is for America.

The bigger question would be then if Scotland entered the EU as a new country - would they be able to avoid joining the Euro? The examples that are normally used for not using the single currency are countries who have been members since the 70s/early 80s with long standing currencies, not new petitioners who have a newly adopted currency (as Scotland would be in anything other than a formal currency union).

The Yes campaign could of course say we'll try to join the euro instead, or have an independent Scottish currency, but the former is politically unpopular and the latter probably a bad idea full stop.

yeah this is what i'm asking about. i get the pros and cons of currency union with the UK. i'm just not clear why a scottish currency is such a political (or is it practical?) impossibility?

Oh, sorry. Well I guess there are advantages, but in the short term, the markets aren't likely to have much faith in a brand new currency so it would be pretty weak, leading to much higher import prices for Scots.

Plus I don't even know what would happen to Scots' sterling-denominated debt, mortgages etc - if that fell to the mercy of foreign exchange rates it could get pretty hairy.

if "holyrood and westminster hashing it out as amicably as poss" is a preposterous assumption with yes then why should we assume different for no

You don't have to, but I'd argue the stakes are higher.

The stakes are probably the same, only the timescales are different.

If Westminster treats as No as an excuse to descend into English Tory grandstanding about free Barnett sweeties and nothing comes of The Vow, when the next referendum comes the No side will have two rounds of broken promises behind and virtually nothing to stand on.

No would be their second chance to do this right; I think they'd use it to try to return to business as usual ASAP.

westminster will view the stakes with no as much lower I agree

xpost

xpost On avoiding Euro membership.
Scotland joining the EU as a new country would have to agree to join the Euro. However to actually join the Euro you have to qualify by meeting several convergence criteria. You can delay entry to the Euro by failing to meet the convergence criteria - for example by failing to participate in ERM II. There is no mechanism currently in place that forces members to participate (though it is possible that this could change).
Sweden is required to join the Euro as part of it's membership of the EU but has failed to meet convergence criteria since 2000.
See this article from the European Commission on who can join. and this one on who has met the convergence criteria

Convergence criteria have been notoriously fudged in the past, though.

The question I find myself asking myself most in recent days has been: if there's a No vote, will more harm or good have come from having held the referendum?

we are already members of the EU - there isn't a mechanism in place for expelling a group of people who vote for independence because it hasn't happened before. I believe we will be accommodated fairly easily.

hey what about you guys just have our place when we leave in the ukip future?

What about this: Scotland votes No on Thursday. The EU referendum happens. Majority in UK, but not in Scotland, vote to leave EU. Is it plausible that Scotland could remain within, and the rUK leave, without break up of the UK? The situation with the Faeroe Islands and Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark might be a sort of precendent, but they're both a very different scene (altho share characteristics of being cold and wet).

xpost
The UK is part of the EU, Scotland is not. As elaborated by the Spanish PM earlier today:

He said it was clear under EU treaties and from statements from European leaders that "if a part of a state becomes separate, it becomes a third party in relation to the European Union".

For "separate territories within a member state" to join the EU would take years and depend on the ratification of all 28 member states, he added.

It's easy to believe this isn't true, but it's only a belief and doesn't seem to be supported by anybody in power anywhere. The President of the European Commission has unequivocally stated the same thing as the Spanish PM.

Spanish PM not a disinterested party tbf

belief counts for a lot in unprecedented situations and I believe that the eu would not exclude 5m+ of its citizens at a stoke never mind the complications it would creat vis-a-vis fish ect and of course the spanish pm says that

xpost

Well no, the spanish PM may be an interested party, but it doesn't make it less valid.

Kosovo is a good comparison, as a country which voted for independence from an existing member state. Because 5 countries object (Spain being one) the realistic estimate they are proposing for entry is 2024, and that's for a country already on the Euro. They also have to adopt Schengen.

I wonder what will happen

Whoops, sorry, I thought Serbia was already in but they are just candidates also.

http://i.imgur.com/sYjimNe.png

xp Scottish citizens won't cease overnight to become EU citizens as a result of a "yes" vote IMO, regardless of what the Spanish PM says to send signals to Catalonia.

IMO doing a lot of work there

well yes of course but the fact remains that 5m people can't be ejected from the EU as a result of a referendum. It might be the case that Scotland has to negotiate entry, but it should be on the basis that Scotland is already part of the EU in terms of its legal and regulatory framework and the citizenship of (most of) its residents. It's not comparable to e.g. Serbia's negotiated entry.

IMO the answer to the killer punch questions i.e. eu and currency is no one knows and there is no way to know and we can only find out afterwards and it's stupid and disingenuous of people e.g. jim murphy alistair darling to say "tell us the answer" over and over and over again

also disingenuous of A Salmond to say "hey guys vote yes everything will be cool" when exactly these kind of questions remain unanswered

but also speaks to the incompetence of the "no" campaign that they aren't able to make these points stick (by and large) and the fact that Cameron botched making the terms of the referendum clear to begin with, allowing SNP & friends to monopolise the "message of hope" type stuff. Salmond is the canniest political operator in the (lol) UK in the last 30yrs, with the possible exception of Gerry Adams.

LOL @ 'Britain' and 'Britishness' though, fundamentally

also disingenuous of A Salmond to say "hey guys vote yes everything will be cool" when exactly these kind of questions remain unanswered

What's the honest answer, though? "vote Yes for the unknown because the people who can answer these questions will just keep refusing to do so until they have to"?

Accepting that there are unknowns may be uncomfortable but I think it's fair to make a decision taking those unknowns into consideration.

Alex Salmond may not be in any position of power next year so his answers may not mean anything anyway. The "white paper" isn't really a White Paper - it's an SNP manifesto for an indy Scotland election.

Also unknown: what, if any, new powers will be devolved to Scotland post-no and post-2015 GE.

also unknown: will there be a referendum on uk membership of eu and if so what would be the outcome and many other things

English MP's will make feelings known on that after the result
xp