the scottish independence referendum

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

I assume if there's a No vote there's a good chance of the Labour Party getting murdered at the General Election - in Scotland - thus making a Tory victory more likely?