If there is a Yes vote in the referendum, it could see Labour losing as many as 40 MPs after May’s general election, ahead of what will be Scotland’s independence day in 2016.
The scale of the political problem facing Mr Miliband was set out last October by former Tory Prime Minister Sir John Major.
He said that Scottish independence might suit the Tories politically but would be a disaster for the UK, telling a journalists’ lunch that “If Scotland went, the UK would be diminished”.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Yeah that angle to Labour's support of the No campaign is pretty obvious. There is no way they woudl so readily agree with the Tories on it if it didn't suit them.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Stas Bush wrote:A small price for freedom from the British crown, is it not? Many paid an even greater price.
Yeah, it's great until their economy collaspes and people start to miss payments on housing, cars, the government can't pay for healthcare...
Seriously, I get that you're huge into communism and revolutions and other STUPID SHIT, but will you please think your fucking plans through, Stas?
Goddammit, now I'm forced to say in public that I agree with Mr. Coffee. - Mike Wong
I never would have thought I would wholeheartedly agree with Coffee... - fgalkin x2
Honestly, this board is so fucking stupid at times. - Thanas GALEForceCarwash: Oh, I'll wax that shit, bitch...
Stas Bush wrote:A small price for freedom from the British crown, is it not? Many paid an even greater price.
Yeah, it's great until their economy collaspes and people start to miss payments on housing, cars, the government can't pay for healthcare...
So, did you even fucking pay attention to the debate? London would gladly dismantle the welfare state even further; keeping its remnants may be only an option with independence. But hey, I guess that doesn't matter because paying attention isn't important.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
The Yes campaign is somehow winning, despite Salmond having no clear plan for what to do it everything doesn't go exactly his way.
It's kind of scary for the Scots - as far as Salmonds planning goes its:
- Get independence
- ?????
- Land of Milk and Honey
No contingency planning for not getting into the EU (hello Spain with your multiple separatist movements), no contingency plans for currency - which is especially bad since every single political party has been firm on no currency union - entirely reliant on rapidly drying up sources of natural gas and oil in the North Sea (estimates range from 10-20 years of economically viable deposits)
Not to mention the flight of jobs and talent that will happen - a number of businesses have outright said they'll have to leave, scientists in Scotland in many areas are reliant on funding from the UK - then you've got foreign investment and businesses. Say what you want about London being a hive of pure scum and a weight on the rest of the country, there's no denying that any business would be crazy to set up shop elsewhere.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll
For clarity, I'm intending to vote no come next week, but a couple of quick thoughts on why I think yes is doing well:
The "No" campaign has been a shambles. Really, it has. Its not been helped by the fact that part of their argument has been that we'll get more powers if we vote n (no solid comment on what that might entale). Its only in the past 2 days we've started to hear more, and that's only because Westminster's woken up to the fact that yes might actually win. The no campaign's been complacent since day 1 and its suddenly bitten them in the arse with a week to go. Suddenly announcing all these new powers just comes across as panic.
Any concerns over the EU tend to be overridden by the (not entirely unreasonable) assumption that "something will be sorted". Its not helped by the fact that the Tories are in full panic mode over UKIP which means that the yes campaign can just say "well if you vote no then there's a good chance you'll be dragged out of the EU anyway". People take the view that without Westminster, at least we can decide ourselves whether we want to be part of Europe and see where that goes.
The mere fact there's a tory government in power. If it was Labour then I don't think it would be as bad, but they've been in power just long enough to have people fed up and have given the nationalists plenty of targets. Add to that the fact that there's talk of a UKIP/Tory pact for the next election (how likely that is doesn't matter, the possibility is enough for some people to vote yes).
There is the general view among yes voters I know that yes there'll be a lot of tough things, but in the long run Scotland will come out fine. That's a hard argument to fight.
The UKIP is an interesting factor. Are they disliked in Scotland?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
They do have some support, but its minimal (I'd guess less than the Tories, which is saying something). If memory serves they got 1 MEP in Scotland last euro elections, but I take that more as a protest than anything else. They won't have a hope come a parliamentary election.
Perfect! Sounds like Scotland's a good place. Farage really is scum, after all.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
UKIP are more of a factor in influencing how the Tories are acting - they're outright terrified of UKIP right now, not even because UKIP have a chance of getting more than one or two members into parliament.
The big factor is going to be in marginal seats where UKIP votes steal away from Torie votes and let Labour win that seat, couple that with defections from the Tory backbench to UKIP and it has Call me Dave and his chums panicking - and it has them acting in ways that make no sense (like the whole EU issue as a whole) than Cameron would like to be acting. It's also likely to influence how the Tories treat Scotland if they do vote yes - there's no chance he can go easy with UKIP nipping at his heels.
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll
What would happen to our P5 seat at the security council?
The Foreign Office line is that in the event of Scottish independence the rest of the UK would retain its permanent place on the United Nations security council. That seat is prized by the Foreign Office. Britain is only one of five permanent members of the council – along with Russia, the US, France and China – and, like the other four, has a veto.
A Foreign Office spokesman has said “independent legal opinion sought and published by the UK government” had clarified that the UK would continue on existing terms and Scotland would be an entirely new state. But there is one huge caveat to this: UK membership of the security council is dependent on Scotland not declaring that both countries are new states. If Alex Salmond wants a bargaining chip over currency or anything else, he has a big one.
There are lots of states such as India and Brazil that want to be permanent members that would take the opportunity to end Britain’s prized status. There are also members of the European Union who think the UK should give up its seat anyway and make it an EU one.
I don't see that happening. If rUk was to be declared a "new state" (and why would Salmond get to declare that anyway?), what happens to all its treaties (EU, NATO, various with the US etc)? It would be a nightmare for everyone and I could see everyone just telling him to bugger off.
Russia retained the Soviet Union's old seat on the security council as the successor state of the USSR. I think the now Not So United Kingdom should be the successor state of the UK and hence retain its seat.
I can't see how the UK will lose its seat short of being kicked out the UN itself. The only way such a thing has been done (to my knowledge) was the legal argument China used to expel Taiwan and allow the PRC to take the permanent seat reserved for "China" at the cost of the ROC. That is they didn't argue for a new member to enter, but representation for a country. That is Beijing truly represented the Chinese people and not Taipei. This argument is reasonable given the disparity in population size, thus the entity which represented a much larger part of China would be the "true" representative. The only reason why this got through Taiwan, is because representation is one of the few things veto power doesn't cover. If the PRC had asked to join the UN as a separate state (something which neither the PRC or the ROC at the time desired since they both insisted they were the true China) then Taiwan could use its veto power then.
Such an issue won't be the case here as both Scotland and the former UK would recognise each other as independent nations as opposed to two factions fighting to be the ruler of the combined country.
That being said, I can't imagine there would be any objection is the UK willingly gave up its seat, but there could be disagreements on who takes its place. Presumably if they want the security council to be more representative, as opposed to its original conception of whoever joined together to fight the Axis powers, then you should get either an African or South American country. This scenario however is IMO unlikely.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Sharp-kun wrote: If rUk was to be declared a "new state" (and why would Salmond get to declare that anyway?),
That was my thought - I don't see why the UK's status would be any different if Scotland decide they want to go it alone.
One of the big problems Scotland will have, in my opinion, is that they will be very much in a weak position when they negotiate their exit. The UK has no real incentive to give Scotland anymore than the bare minimum, as Scotland will already be completely committed to exiting the UK at any cost, due to the referendum result.
Scotland will be far better off staying in the Union and grabbing more devolved power. It's kind of the best of both worlds really - well not exactly best, but they will be giving up a lot for not really much of a benefit.
The problem the no campaign has (apart from the unwise involvement from politicians south of the border) is that its pragmatic and practical arguments are always going to sound a bit dull against the Scots Wahay!! battle cry of the yes camp.
That was my thought - I don't see why the UK's status would be any different if Scotland decide they want to go it alone.
It would be no different than if Texas voted to leave the US. The United States would still be the same overall sovereign nation despite losing a portion of the whole.
mr friendly guy wrote:Russia retained the Soviet Union's old seat on the security council as the successor state of the USSR. I think the now Not So United Kingdom should be the successor state of the UK and hence retain its seat.
Because Russia kept Soviet nukes, almost all the tanks and such, and vast majority of the territory? Not so united kingdom will be smaller than Poland and will have problems keeping their nuclear arsenal alive.
Also, the problem with UK is that the state is the result of Acts of Union. It can be argued that independent Scotland will arise by virtue of nullification of these, meaning end of kingdom of Great Britain and reverting back to kingdom of England/Scotland. Without kingdom of Great Britain, there is no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at best there will be United (sorta) Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.
Borgholio wrote:It would be no different than if Texas voted to leave the US. The United States would still be the same overall sovereign nation despite losing a portion of the whole.
Yeah, because there totally wasn't USA before Texas joined, eh?
Better analogue would be USA reduced to 13 original states and 6 of these leaving.
While I think "Devo-Max" would be best for Scotland, from a political science perspective I'm hoping they vote for independence. It's another "natural experiment" like West/East Germany and North/South Korea (except thankfully done through peaceful and democratic means), where you have a split into two countries with extremely similar background cultures and people and can more easily isolate how policy changes in one of them work compared to the other.
I don't buy the currency issue as a real thing, at least beyond the first year or two. Sure, the "Yes" team is saying "We'll keep the pound" for now, but I think that's just to take the issue off the table for a few years until they can get a set-up ready for their own currency to be issued. Certain Scottish banks can already issue pounds, and Edinburgh's got a major financial sector, so all they'd really need to do is decided on a currency, set up a central bank, and then figure out whether to "swap" debts denominated in British pounds for Scottish ones or just pay them off.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.” -Jean-Luc Picard
"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." -Margaret Atwood
England has got a population of ~53 million. They are perfectly able to survive all by themselves.
Though I do agree the security council seat would better work as a European one. Actually, I think both France and Englands should be European seats, not national ones.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Guardsman Bass wrote:While I think "Devo-Max" would be best for Scotland, from a political science perspective I'm hoping they vote for independence. It's another "natural experiment" like West/East Germany and North/South Korea (except thankfully done through peaceful and democratic means), where you have a split into two countries with extremely similar background cultures and people and can more easily isolate how policy changes in one of them work compared to the other.
Didn't we already tried that with Czechoslovakia? End results weren't that bad, IMHO.
Darmalus wrote:Scotland represents ~90% of the UKs land, resources, economic power and military strength?
Strikes me the 'No' Campaign's tactic of saying We'll devolve more powers to you if you stay is a losing tactic. Because you can't devolve them more powers than they would have if they're independent.
Still the Yes Campaign's talking points seem no better. Just seems to assume independence will make everything magically better.
Irbis wrote:Better analogue would be USA reduced to 13 original states and 6 of these leaving.
Scotland represents ~90% of the UKs land, resources, economic power and military strength?
That is pretty much irrelevant.
Put it that way: Brit and Scot make a contract to pool their resources and found a new company, "UK Inc." which is a separate legal entity. Each gets a share proportional to what they bring in. Instead of money they bring in real estate they own. The company gets a nice contract with a customer. Then Scot wants out. First way would be that he sells his stocks to the company, and they company pays him in real estate instead of cash. And the real estate happens to be the one Scot used to own. Second possibility is that Scot nullifies the contract and both shareholders get what they originally gave to the company. But in this variant the company stops existing, which also means its contract with the customer stops existing. Brit and Scot can found new companies and hope they will get the same conditions, but that is not a given.
I think the government in London will argue that the new Scotland isn't the representative of the old Scotland from 1707, but a new entity who can't void that treaty and it just happens to be in the same place (that is against all common sense, but that's how laws work.)
Guardsman Bass wrote:I don't buy the currency issue as a real thing, at least beyond the first year or two. Sure, the "Yes" team is saying "We'll keep the pound" for now, but I think that's just to take the issue off the table for a few years until they can get a set-up ready for their own currency to be issued. Certain Scottish banks can already issue pounds, and Edinburgh's got a major financial sector, so all they'd really need to do is decided on a currency, set up a central bank, and then figure out whether to "swap" debts denominated in British pounds for Scottish ones or just pay them off.
That's your opinion and it's wrong. Currency is a big issue. The whole Eurozone mess with it's devastating unemployment was magnified by a shared currency without fiscal integration. Same for the crisis in Argentine in 2000, the Asian crisis in 1998, and so on and so on.
One marvels at how consistently badly the London government has fucked up in the north that roughly half of Scotland apparently now would rather take a chance going it alone than stay in the UK any longer.
Having said that, do I wonder how many of the people now claiming they'll vote 'yes' on polls and whatnot will get cold feet when they're filling out their ballots.
To those scoffing the alleged lack of detail from yes. They just have to be not as bad as another 4year's of Tory austerity and selling off national institutions to their mates
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
mr friendly guy wrote:Russia retained the Soviet Union's old seat on the security council as the successor state of the USSR. I think the now Not So United Kingdom should be the successor state of the UK and hence retain its seat.
Because Russia kept Soviet nukes, almost all the tanks and such, and vast majority of the territory? Not so united kingdom will be smaller than Poland and will have problems keeping their nuclear arsenal alive.
Scotland contains roughly 10% of the British population. In relative terms they would shrink less than the USSR did.
Also, a nuclear arsenal is not a logical requirement for UN Security Council membership- hence the argument for letting, say, Brazil have a seat.
Also, the problem with UK is that the state is the result of Acts of Union. It can be argued that independent Scotland will arise by virtue of nullification of these, meaning end of kingdom of Great Britain and reverting back to kingdom of England/Scotland. Without kingdom of Great Britain, there is no United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at best there will be United (sorta) Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland.
It would be a trivial matter, as a part of the (orderly) secession process, for the British parliament to pass laws that serve the same legal function as the annulled portions of the Acts of Union.
Borgholio wrote:It would be no different than if Texas voted to leave the US. The United States would still be the same overall sovereign nation despite losing a portion of the whole.
Yeah, because there totally wasn't USA before Texas joined, eh?
Better analogue would be USA reduced to 13 original states and 6 of these leaving.
Are you saying that Scotland is half (or six thirteenths) of Britain?
Irbis wrote:
Darmalus wrote:Scotland represents ~90% of the UKs land, resources, economic power and military strength?
Ever heard of British Empire?
Would you mind trying to rewrite that as something other than a non sequitur?
Have you read the population and economic statistics? Or are you just assuming blobs on a map are what count?
Last edited by Simon_Jester on 2014-09-09 01:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
