Lets talk about the Scottish referendum

[Elheru Aran]

Generally speaking, is anyone here from Scotland? And if so how would you rate the odds of the vote passing and GB being split? I am not interested into getting pool numbers or anything like that from the net but what your personal impression of the public mood is.

If you read through the thread you would see a number of posters have already noted that they are. IIRC they have all said they will be voting no, that the 'Yes' party has stronger campaigning than the 'No' currently but the general trend of thought among these posters seems to have been that disunion is more likely to not benefit Scotland than remaining united would.

[Hillary]

I'm really not sure what the party leaders are hoping to achieve with this dash up to Scotland. I honestly can't see what good it will do.

IMHO the best thing that any English politician could have done in this campaign would be to say right at the start:

"We sincerely hope Scotland chooses to remain a part of GB, but it is entirely a matter for them and we do not feel it is our place to get involved in the debate or campaign. We will not comment further until after the referendum" and left it at that.

Anything else just provides grist to Salmond's mill.

[mr friendly guy]

Does anyone know the kind of timescale for separation if the Yes vote goes through? Will it be spread out over a few weeks or months, or will the Scottish people literally wake up the next day in a new, different country?

Er, from the opening article.

If the Yes vote succeeds, independence has been pencilled in for March 24, 2016.

[Sharp-kun]

I'm really not sure what the party leaders are hoping to achieve with this dash up to Scotland. I honestly can't see what good it will do.

IMHO the best thing that any English politician could have done in this campaign would be to say right at the start:

"We sincerely hope Scotland chooses to remain a part of GB, but it is entirely a matter for them and we do not feel it is our place to get involved in the debate or campaign. We will not comment further until after the referendum" and left it at that.

Anything else just provides grist to Salmond's mill.

I disagree. A lot of people in Scotland (more than would vote for independence) support more powers rather than going separate ways. Unfortunately more powers isn't an option on the ballot.

Now that yes is a real possibility however, we're getting offered more powers. Unfortunately each party is offering something different and as nothing was really offered before it comes across as desperate.

What should have happened is that Westminster laid out months ago a clear plan of what voting no would entail (cross party consensus) and stuck to it, rather than a last minute faff that comes across badly and gives Salmond even more ammo.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, their last moves all smell of desperation.

[Purple]

Er, from the opening article.

If the Yes vote succeeds, independence has been pencilled in for March 24, 2016.

2016. That's a long way from now. Would it not be too long? I mean it would easily be enough time for everyone to change their minds.

[PREDATOR490]

I'm from Scotland and I am still undecided.
I have met folks that will vote Yes and I have met folks that will vote No with earfuls of arguments given for why. Everything from wanting to stop the evil Pols from stealing our jobs to country X will invade.

I don't think Scotland should leave as a combined UK is stronger together and frankly neither campaign has been impressive. So, Scotland stays we get left with the same individuals that made a fuck up of not caring until the last minute or Scotland leaves with no details on what will really happen. Seems like trying to choose the lesser or two evils when you don't even know what the differences are.

[Elheru Aran]

Er, from the opening article.

If the Yes vote succeeds, independence has been pencilled in for March 24, 2016.

2016. That's a long way from now. Would it not be too long? I mean it would easily be enough time for everyone to change their minds.

We're talking about countries that have existed for the past... ehhh, nine hundred, thousand years or so and have been unified on and off from that time, being solidly together since roughly the 1600's. A year or even two doesn't make a whole lot of difference because the current state of society isn't going to change abruptly unless there's some highly major extenuating circumstances (plague, war, etc). If it was a decade, then yes, that might be long enough for things to change. Slightly over one year? That's almost too soon.

[Purple]

We're talking about countries that have existed for the past... ehhh, nine hundred, thousand years or so and have been unified on and off from that time, being solidly together since roughly the 1600's. A year or even two doesn't make a whole lot of difference because the current state of society isn't going to change abruptly unless there's some highly major extenuating circumstances (plague, war, etc). If it was a decade, then yes, that might be long enough for things to change. Slightly over one year? That's almost too soon.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you. But given the rather short attention span of modern man and the fact that the situation seems to be such that people are indecisive as is who can say?

[Elheru Aran]

Ordinarily I'd agree with you. But given the rather short attention span of modern man and the fact that the situation seems to be such that people are indecisive as is who can say?

Please tell me you're not completely unaware of the history of the relationship between Scotland, England, and how that affects their current existence as two parts of the United Kingdom, a country with global influence currently and throughout history. This is an important enough issue that it won't be forgotten or tossed to the wayside anytime soon.

The indecisiveness is part and parcel of any political situation-- you're always going to have, what, 20-30% of the population that falls firmly to one side or another. The rest are going to twiddle their thumbs until they're staring at a ballot. That's not really going to change anytime soon, either.

[madd0ct0r]

since we all enjoy a good laugh, this is the email I just got from Call Me Dave

My message to the Scottish people is simple: we want you to stay.
As the United Kingdom, we have punched above our weight for centuries - and we've done so together.
When the world wanted representation, we gave them democracy. When they wanted progress, we had the Scottish enlightenment and the industrial revolution.
When slavery bound innocent people, we abolished it; when fascism threatened freedom, we defeated it.
As individuals and as nations, we have done extraordinary things. This is the special alchemy of the UK - you mix together Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and together we smash expectations.
The UK is a special and precious country. So let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.
Across England, Northern Ireland and Wales, our fear over what we stand to lose is matched only by our passion for what can be achieved if we stay together.
So please, if you don't have a vote in this referendum, join me in signing a letter to everyone who does, letting them know that we passionately want them to stay.
If we pull together, we can keep on building a better future for our children. We can make sure our destiny matches our history, because there really will be no second chances. If the UK breaks apart, it breaks apart forever.
So if you have a vote, please choose a brighter future for Scotland by voting No.
And if you don't have a vote, please sign this letter to the voters of Scotland, expressing our heartfelt desire to keep our proud family of nations together.
Thanks,
David Cameron
Facebook.com/DavidCameronOfficial

[Starglider]

Breakup rather than reform of the United Kingdom is a spectaculary bad idea; it would be a bad idea under normal circumstances but the current government debt position and global economic environment make it potentially disastrous in addition to a huge waste. Salmon being bang in the middle of the Chavez-Mugabe contiuum makes it even worse.

I think they're starting to regret that decision, because the No campaign has consisted largely of scare tactics and veiled threats to be wilfully obstructive to the point of sabotage .

A significant fraction of the Conservative party want Scotland to leave because it would make it substantially easier for them to win majorities. Exactly how big this camp is and whether David Cameron is in it is hard to say, as obviously it would be political suicide to hold this position openly.

[Darmalus]

If Scotland does leave and the rest of the UK swings conservative, how likely would it be fore them to finally leave the EU they hate so much?

[Starglider]

If Scotland does leave and the rest of the UK swings conservative, how likely would it be fore them to finally leave the EU they hate so much?

The Conservative party does not currently want to leave the EU, because it would be a significant negative for the economy (lack of cheap labour, slightly less market access for the London banking industry, somewhat less foreign investment propping up house prices). Obviously UKIP do and at this point they are probably correct to say that it would be a net positive for the other 90% of the UK population (that don't have big stock and/or property portfolios). The conservative party would swing to the UKIP position if the EU gets much worse on regulation, starts demanding significantly money from nothern countries to subsidise/bail out southern countries, or tries to force more countries to join the euro (although that's very unlikely now). Neither party will do so without a referendum though so ultimately this will be down to the UK population. Polling is inconclusive at the moment since most people haven't given it serious thought, but certainly there is a significant chance that the UK would leave getting stronger with Scotland out of the picture.

It is kind of bizarre that the Scottish nationalists want to retain the Queen as head of state, despite the fact that it's a socialist movement with a strong republican history. The idea of Scotland joining the EU is of course a contradiction with the idea of localism and decentralisation delivering a better government, but one forced by necessity given the precarious position independent Scotland would be in.

[Zaune]

It is kind of bizarre that the Scottish nationalists want to retain the Queen as head of state, despite the fact that it's a socialist movement with a strong republican history.

I was under the impression they weren't so much actively in favour of keeping the monarchy as wanting to deal with that and many other questions after the divorce is settled.

The idea of Scotland joining the EU is of course a contradiction with the idea of localism and decentralisation delivering a better government, but one forced by necessity given the precarious position independent Scotland would be in.

Well, Devo Max was their first choice. Besides, the main reason most English people object to being in the EU is because they can't cope with the idea of having all these foreign people around. (Here's a fun thing to try; ask one of the more vocal examples, "Well, who's going to do the n****r work then?" and watch the mental gear-clashing.) This is less of an issue in Scotland, to say the least.

[Dartzap]

I imagine in the event that Scotland does swap Westminster Arseholery for Holyrood Arseholery that there will be a fair chance of boundary reforms going ahead in the the remainder of the UK to maintain equality for Labour. Or the Tories are power for the rest of the eternity.

Please don't leave us Scotland, as thats surely a horrifying and illegal form of cruel and unusual punishment.

[Siege]

Surely Labour cannot be so incompetent that they can't capitalize on the fact that the Conservatives presided over the dismantling of the United Kingdom as it stood for four centuries? I mean, that kind of political capital should last for decades. Right?

Oh who am I kidding.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Surely Labour cannot be so incompetent that they can't capitalize on the fact that the Conservatives presided over the dismantling of the United Kingdom as it stood for four centuries? I mean, that kind of political capital should last for decades. Right?

Oh who am I kidding.

Even if they tried it wouldn't work. All the Tories would need to do is remind people they were opposed to it and that a Labour MP and former Chancellor was the guy who screwed up the "no" campaign. Boom, publicity stunt destroyed.

[Darmalus]

. The idea of Scotland joining the EU is of course a contradiction with the idea of localism and decentralisation delivering a better government, but one forced by necessity given the precarious position independent Scotland would be in.

It doesn't strike me as a contradiction to believe that going it alone is better than membership in Group A, but membership in Group B is better than going it alone.

Whether belief and reality match is a different question.

[Iroscato]

Does anyone know the kind of timescale for separation if the Yes vote goes through? Will it be spread out over a few weeks or months, or will the Scottish people literally wake up the next day in a new, different country?

Er, from the opening article.

If the Yes vote succeeds, independence has been pencilled in for March 24, 2016.

Ah. Must admit I only skimmed through this thread. Thanks.

[Hillary]

I'm really not sure what the party leaders are hoping to achieve with this dash up to Scotland. I honestly can't see what good it will do.

IMHO the best thing that any English politician could have done in this campaign would be to say right at the start:

"We sincerely hope Scotland chooses to remain a part of GB, but it is entirely a matter for them and we do not feel it is our place to get involved in the debate or campaign. We will not comment further until after the referendum" and left it at that.

Anything else just provides grist to Salmond's mill.

I disagree. A lot of people in Scotland (more than would vote for independence) support more powers rather than going separate ways. Unfortunately more powers isn't an option on the ballot.

Now that yes is a real possibility however, we're getting offered more powers. Unfortunately each party is offering something different and as nothing was really offered before it comes across as desperate.

What should have happened is that Westminster laid out months ago a clear plan of what voting no would entail (cross party consensus) and stuck to it, rather than a last minute faff that comes across badly and gives Salmond even more ammo.

I was more talking about the idea of English politicians getting involved in the debate (i.e. they really shouldn't) but I would agree that it would have helped the no campaign had the further devolved powers been laid out at the beginning. I'm guessing that Cameron expected it not to be necessary, as he was convinced the Scots would vote no in any case.

Not really sure why Devo Max (sounds like a tribute band to me) is seen to be a bad thing from the point of view of Westminster.

[Civil War Man]

I was more talking about the idea of English politicians getting involved in the debate (i.e. they really shouldn't) but I would agree that it would have helped the no campaign had the further devolved powers been laid out at the beginning. I'm guessing that Cameron expected it not to be necessary, as he was convinced the Scots would vote no in any case.

Not really sure why Devo Max (sounds like a tribute band to me) is seen to be a bad thing from the point of view of Westminster.

If I had to make a guess, it would be because willingly giving up powers they already have is anathema to most politicians, and judging from the Scottish members of the board, allowing devolution options on the ballot would have pretty much guaranteed a win for devolution. We're only seeing offers of devolution now because Westminster realized that they might have grossly miscalculated how many would prefer full independence to the status quo.

[Hillary]

I was more talking about the idea of English politicians getting involved in the debate (i.e. they really shouldn't) but I would agree that it would have helped the no campaign had the further devolved powers been laid out at the beginning. I'm guessing that Cameron expected it not to be necessary, as he was convinced the Scots would vote no in any case.

Not really sure why Devo Max (sounds like a tribute band to me) is seen to be a bad thing from the point of view of Westminster.

If I had to make a guess, it would be because willingly giving up powers they already have is anathema to most politicians, and judging from the Scottish members of the board, allowing devolution options on the ballot would have pretty much guaranteed a win for devolution. We're only seeing offers of devolution now because Westminster realized that they might have grossly miscalculated how many would prefer full independence to the status quo.

Yes, you're probably right about that - no politician will cede power without a fight, regardless of whether it is the correct thing to do. I guess, at the end of the day, the reality is that Devo Max will be the end result (I just don't see the yes camp winning) - so both sides can claim victory and, more importantly, the Scots will get greater say over their affairs without the potential economic problems full independence would come with.

[Teebs]

I imagine in the event that Scotland does swap Westminster Arseholery for Holyrood Arseholery that there will be a fair chance of boundary reforms going ahead in the the remainder of the UK to maintain equality for Labour. Or the Tories are power for the rest of the eternity.

Please don't leave us Scotland, as thats surely a horrifying and illegal form of cruel and unusual punishment.

It's worth remembering that the last three Labour majorities would still have been majorities without Scotland and at the most recent election the Tories still wouldn't have had a majority without Scotland (although they'd have been closer).

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sc ... 31081.html

443
PRINT A A A
Almost £17 billion has been pulled out of the UK economy in the last month amid concern over the Scottish independence referendum.

A report, by London-based consultancy CrossBorder Capital, claimed it was the biggest drain of financial assets since the Lehman crisis in 2008.

The news comes as the economic future of an independent Scotland takes centre stage in the increasingly bitter independence debate.

With just six days left until Thursday’s vote, nationalists have accused David Cameron of orchestrating a scare campaign with business leaders to frighten voters into keeping the union.

But No campaigners insist there are serious flaws in Alex Salmond’s economic plan for an independent Scotland and separation brings financial uncertainty.

Yes campaigners are pushing back against firms saying they may move operations out of Scotland if it secedes by threatening nationalisation.

You can read the rest from the link. It appears that already just the fear of independence is already having a financial impact. Although someone should point out even if the YES vote wins, Scotland remains in the UK until 2016 which gives time to make some adjustments.