Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[BoJack Horseman]

No voters who are voting No due to the lack of clarity of what will happen in the result of a Yes vote. What's your opinion now that there's also the same lack of clarity in result of a No vote? In that, I refer to these new powers that are being promised without any weight behind them.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

You know what I'm saying. Yes, we'd have a say as part of the UK, but we wouldn't have a say as a country. Votes from London alone would cancel out any Scottish votes. Working on the assumption that the Scottish people would want to stick with the EU.

London, apparently, is the most pro-European area of the UK. However, has there actually been a debate about what European membership entails and where Europe is going? If Scotland can be politically galvanised by this debate, why couldn't the whole UK be similarly galvanised by a European debate and you just might find that these differences within the UK don't actually exist.

[Footballfirst]

Wrong. The threshold was added by Labour.

Correct Geoff and my apologies. It was an amendment that was put forward by Labour MP George Cunningham.

[red21]

Jim Sillars explains his 'tactics'...

http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/jim-sillars-day-reckoning-nationalisation-speech/

 

What's the ?70 million Standard Life building he mentioned? New offices for SL, or is it a building SL Investments are involved in - two very different things.

Edited September 15, 2014 by red21

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Jim Sillars explains his 'tactics'...

http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/jim-sillars-day-reckoning-nationalisation-speech/

 

What's the ?70 million Standard Life building he mentioned? New offices for SL, or is it a builing SL Investments are involved in - two very different things.

What genius!

 

[Gorgiewave]

Don Draper: whichever expression you like to indicate that, in my opinion, some Yes people think they are, by voting Yes, doing away with frustration, disappointment, not getting your own way, having to put up with good counterexamples, ambiguity, moral dilemmas, the terrible irritation of people not agreeing with you. In that sense, it's a way of fleeing from the real world.

 

 

[deesidejambo]

No voters who are voting No due to the lack of clarity of what will happen in the result of a Yes vote. What's your opinion now that there's also the same lack of clarity in result of a No vote? In that, I refer to these new powers that are being promised without any weight behind them.

 

To me as a No voter it is irrelevant - I am voting No from the heart and I expect a lot of others are also. If it was proven beyond doubt that I would be better-off by ?1000 a year in Independence, I would still vote No because I am proud of my heritage (also my missus is English). Likewise, Yes voters would still vote Yes even if it were proven they would be worse off.

 

What I'm trying to say is the economic arguments are less relevant than they are made out to be. Many oeople decided on Day 1 of the campaign and hav enot changed their stance one bit.

[Nookie Bear]

No voters who are voting No due to the lack of clarity of what will happen in the result of a Yes vote. What's your opinion now that there's also the same lack of clarity in result of a No vote? In that, I refer to these new powers that are being promised without any weight behind them.

 

But the overall clarity is the status quo.

[BoJack Horseman]

To me as a No voter it is irrelevant - I am voting No from the heart and I expect a lot of others are also. If it was proven beyond doubt that I would be better-off by ?1000 a year in Independence, I would still vote No because I am proud of my heritage (also my missus is English). Likewise, Yes voters would still vote Yes even if it were proven they would be worse off.

 

What I'm trying to say is the economic arguments are less relevant than they are made out to be. Many oeople decided on Day 1 of the campaign and hav enot changed their stance one bit.

 

I agree with that, in the sense that nothing will sway me from a Yes vote. But you've completely ignored the caveat in my question, which would rule you out as a passionate voter.

[BoJack Horseman]

But the overall clarity is the status quo.

 

But it's not any more. Regardless of the outcome, changes will happen in Scotland, and no one knows what they will be. Business as usual is no longer an option.

[Gabriel]

London, apparently, is the most pro-European area of the UK. However, has there actually been a debate about what European membership entails and where Europe is going? If Scotland can be politically galvanised by this debate, why couldn't the whole UK be similarly galvanised by a European debate and you just might find that these differences within the UK don't actually exist.

 

Think that may depend on the definition of 'London'. You are right, though, for all the talk of independence and sovereignty, should there be a 'Yes' vote, it will be 'surrendered' to Brussels without any further debate, i would imagine. Cue 'damn that Brussels elite' in a few years.

[TheMaganator]

Jim Sillars explains his 'tactics'...

http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/jim-sillars-day-reckoning-nationalisation-speech/

 

What's the ?70 million Standard Life building he mentioned? New offices for SL, or is it a building SL Investments are involved in - two very different things.

 

FFS, he talks of deceit, mistruths and shame and then puts in that quote from Lamont.

 

Yes or No, the sooner that we can rid ourselves of politicians whose only goal in entering politics was to separate us from the UK the better.

 

This is the biggest piece of nonsense I have witnessed since Christine Graham told us that Sterling took a hit the other day because Obama was getting ready to invade Syria.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Think that may depend on the definition of 'London'. You are right, though, for all the talk of independence and sovereignty, should there be a 'Yes' vote, it will be 'surrendered' to Brussels without any further debate, i would imagine. Cue 'damn that Brussels elite' in a few years.

London region as used for European elections.

[jambo1185]

Apparently we are getting a referendum on the Queen next.

[Nookie Bear]

But it's not any more. Regardless of the outcome, changes will happen in Scotland, and no one knows what they will be. Business as usual is no longer an option.

 

True but the change will be more gradual and drip-fed rather than the leap into the unknown of YES (which could be good in the long term, I'll admit)

[deesidejambo]

I agree with that, in the sense that nothing will sway me from a Yes vote. But you've completely ignored the caveat in my question, which would rule you out as a passionate voter.

 

So it does. Did'nt think of it that way.

 

On the clarity issue - if both campaigns projections are unclear, then you are left with the Status Quo to use yourself as a benchmark- i.e. if we stay as-is we keep the pound and we stay in Europe (Cameron I'm sure will now be sick of referendums, and Labour will be back in next year anyway). If you go with Yes then the EU and the currency remain unclear. So I say there is more "clarity" for whatever that means, in staying as-is for the big issues.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Apparently we are getting a referendum on the Queen next.

Incidentally, why has the anodyne response of Her Maj to a question at Balmoral turned into a story? She said nothing to indicate bias!

[deesidejambo]

Apparently we are getting a referendum on the Queen next.

 

Patrick Harvie this morning calling for a review of the Queens status in event of Yes. I wonder when Eck will tell him to shut up on that.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Patrick Harvie this morning calling for a review of the Queens status in event of Yes. I wonder when Eck will tell him to shut up on that.

At least he is an honest republican, not a finger crosser like Roseanna Cunningham.

[deesidejambo]

Incidentally, why has the anodyne response of Her Maj to a question at Balmoral turned into a story? She said nothing to indicate bias!

 

Agreed. Also Martin Gilbert of Aberdeen Asset Mgt explicitly said Scotland will prosper in either case, but the papers, and the BBC, headlined it as "Gilbert says Scotland will prosper under Independence". BBC bias towards the seperatists?

[deesidejambo]

Brian Cox quote this morning...............

 

He said: "The independence issue is going to be won in Wester Hailes, it is going to be won in Pilton, it is going to be won in Granton and in Lochee in Dundee."

 

Sadly he is correct. The schemies will deliver Independence.

[Nookie Bear]

Patrick Harvie this morning calling for a review of the Queens status in event of Yes. I wonder when Eck will tell him to shut up on that.

 

The role of the Queen has not been mentioned at all and Harvie will be slapped down sharpish for that. Still, if YES wins there is no going back and no reason why the role of the Queen cannot be examined...

 

From the White Paper: "We will keep the Queen as our Head of State and the pound as our currency. There will continue to be

close links with the rest of the UK and we will remain part of the same family of nations."

 

Actually, reading that makes me wonder why we are bothering with this referendum.

[jambo1185]

Sir Ian Cheshire, chief executive of the group behind DIY chains B&Q and Screwfix, told the Telegraph the separatists? claims were a ?classic distraction technique? before concluding: ?There?s no conspiracy ? it?s called agreement.?

Well said. Edited September 15, 2014 by jambo1185

[BoJack Horseman]

True but the change will be more gradual and drip-fed rather than the leap into the unknown of YES (which could be good in the long term, I'll admit)

 

Gradual in that it might never happen? Again, there's nothing to indicate what will happen, or how long will it take. Just politicians making empty promises, which if believed would mean devo-max in the event of a No vote. Which isn't even remotely the status quo.

 

 

So it does. Did'nt think of it that way.

 

On the clarity issue - if both campaigns projections are unclear, then you are left with the Status Quo to use yourself as a benchmark- i.e. if we stay as-is we keep the pound and we stay in Europe (Cameron I'm sure will now be sick of referendums, and Labour will be back in next year anyway). If you go with Yes then the EU and the currency remain unclear. So I say there is more "clarity" for whatever that means, in staying as-is for the big issues.

 

There is no status quo option. Ok, we keep the pound. EU is unclear, he's promised a referendum on that point. That's just 2 issues covered, there's a shit load more that would need to be considered, and with 4 days until voting, none of that has been made clear.

 

You can apparently now vote Yes for Independence, or No for an as yet unclear devo-max. Either way, you can't possibly know what will happen to our country after Thursday, which surely can't sit well with the "SALMOND IS NOT CLEAR WITH HIS INTENTIONS" side of the debate.

[southcap]

The role of the Queen has not been mentioned at all and Harvie will be slapped down sharpish for that. Still, if YES wins there is no going back and no reason why the role of the Queen cannot be examined...

 

From the White Paper: "We will keep the Queen as our Head of State and the pound as our currency. There will continue to be

close links with the rest of the UK and we will remain part of the same family of nations."

 

Actually, reading that makes me wonder why we are bothering with this referendum.

 

Because independent nations never collaborate on things that are of mutual interest right enough.

[Nookie Bear]

Gradual in that it might never happen? Again, there's nothing to indicate what will happen, or how long will it take. Just politicians making empty promises, which if believed would mean devo-max in the event of a No vote. Which isn't even remotely the status quo.

 

 

 

 

There is no status quo option. Ok, we keep the pound. EU is unclear, he's promised a referendum on that point. That's just 2 issues covered, there's a shit load more that would need to be considered, and with 4 days until voting, none of that has been made clear.

 

You can apparently now vote Yes for Independence, or No for an as yet unclear devo-max. Either way, you can't possibly know what will happen to our country after Thursday, which surely can't sit well with the "SALMOND IS NOT CLEAR WITH HIS INTENTIONS" side of the debate.

 

Correct, it might never happen. But the same could be said for a number of YES's objectives. What then?

[deesidejambo]

At least he is an honest republican, not a finger crosser like Roseanna Cunningham.

 

True. If the No campaign are smart they will jump on this though. Turn it into Yes having a go at the Queen. I await to see if they jump on it.

[BoJack Horseman]

Correct, it might never happen. But the same could be said for a number of YES's objectives. What then?

 

Well, that's my point isn't it. A lot of vocal No voters are putting uncertainty as their reason for such a vote. What now? Abstain from voting either way?

[Nookie Bear]

Because independent nations never collaborate on things that are of mutual interest right enough.

 

Like the UK?

[TheMaganator]

Incidentally, why has the anodyne response of Her Maj to a question at Balmoral turned into a story? She said nothing to indicate bias!

The press have been desperate from something from her. They totally blew her comments out of proportion.

 

Harry on the other hand said he hoped we'd stay.

[Gabriel]

 

 

The press have been desperate from something from her. They totally blew her comments out of proportion.

 

Harry on the other hand said he hoped we'd stay.

 

Missed that. When did he say that?

[Nookie Bear]

The press have been desperate from something from her. They totally blew her comments out of proportion.

 

Harry on the other hand said he hoped we'd stay.

 

They should ask him again towards the end of his 30th birthday party...would be a MUCH more interesting quote, I reckon.

[FWJ]

 

 

 

Returning Officers are per local authority, so probably get the results by local authority - all 32 of them.

Cheers. Might be an interesting Tayside/NE/Moray v west Central Scotland thing. It'll be interesting to see how the Northern Isles vote, too.

[jambo1185]

To what extent can Glasgow and its surroundings pretty much carry the vote? It is a case of whoever comes out on top there is pretty certain to take the win (unless there are very one-sided results from elsewhere)? I wonder if it will be an early insight into where in an independent Scotland will hold all the power cards.

Edited September 15, 2014 by jambo1185

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

Missed that. When did he say that?

Didn't come out and say it - but the implication was clear

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-harry/11095196/Prince-Harry-lends-support-to-the-Union-in-Scotland-debate.html

[deesidejambo]

Cheers. Might be an interesting Tayside/NE/Moray v west Central Scotland thing. It'll be interesting to see how the Northern Isles vote, too.

 

[modedit]

 

Maybe Shetland will ask for Independence from Scotland in case of a Yes vote! They have sullom Voe.

 

[doctor jambo]

And for good reason. To have a major constitutional issue, that impacts on the heritage of millions of people decided by a simple majority of voters is, in my view, a low hurdle to meet. Cameron may have thought it was in the bag when he agreed it, but now he sees otherwise.

 

Either way, on Thursday, Yes or No, he should resign. He is either the p.m. that allowed the UK to split (so resign), or the p.m. who caused massive hurt and divisiveness in Scotland (so resign).

 

eh?

Salmond called for the referendum

Cameron respected that

IN a YES result Cameron should go

IN a NO result Salmond should go

[jambo1185]

Thunderstruck will be pleased to see his views on renewables reflected in the press today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11095761/Scottish-independence-would-slam-brakes-on-Alex-Salmonds-wind-farm-plans.html

[deesidejambo]

eh?

Salmond called for the referendum

Cameron respected that

IN a YES result Cameron should go

IN a NO result Salmond should go

 

Good point - I forgot about Salmond

 

If Yes Cameron goes.

If No, Cameron and Salmond go.

[Coco]

eh?

Salmond called for the referendum

Cameron respected that

IN a YES result Cameron should go

IN a NO result Salmond should go

 

I expect that Nicola Sturgeon will assume power fairly early on even in the event of a Yes vote. Certainly if there is a No vote.

 

Cameron will obviously be deposed if there is a Yes vote. Very weak position in the case of a narrow No vote too.

[jambo1185]

[modedit]

 

Maybe Shetland will ask for Independence from Scotland in case of a Yes vote! They have sullom Voe.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the No vote in Dumfries and Galloway could be as high as 80%. I doubt that, but if it was does such a significant rejection of independence raise doubts as to whether they would want to have the borders re-drawn? Probably not, that's a tad extreme, but I can see there being issues if any area votes so highly for the losing side.

 

[Gabriel]

Didn't come out and say it - but the implication was clear

 

http://www.telegraph...and-debate.html

 

Is it not the case that you have inferred that? He never explicitly mentioned the referendum nor did the Queen's remarks.

 

Neither side should be trying to make capital out of their remarks or pressing anyone in the Monarchy to make explicit statements.

[deesidejambo]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the No vote in Dumfries and Galloway could be as high as 80%. I doubt that, but if it was does such a significant rejection of independence raise doubts as to whether they would want to have the borders re-drawn? Probably not, that's a tad extreme, but I can see there being issues if any area votes so highly for the losing side.

 

One poll did try to do a regional breakdown. In doing so they lose a lot of statistical significance (i.e. the variance goes up) bit indeed it did show much higher No support for the Border areas. I don't think it was 80% but it was markedly differnet from the rest.

 

Once the ramifications start, if the Borders do indeed vote strong No, there are bound to be some activists there who will push for a boundary investigation. I also wonder what Shetland may do.

[doctor jambo]

Is it not the case that you have inferred that? He never explicitly mentioned the referendum nor did the Queen's remarks.

 

Neither side should be trying to make capital out of their remarks or pressing anyone in the Monarchy to make explicit statements.

 

I think they should- I'd rather know what their actual opinion on the matter was , as opposed to trying to stay neutral- they are not neutral- we are their subjects (at present).

THis self preservation thing they have going by being non-commital is pretty poor.

 

As a No voter- if Yes wins I want a flat out Republic,as the queen would become utterly redundant (ie this revenue generation from the royals would apply only to London - sh she would be utterly a burden)

We would also seize the crown estates

[deesidejambo]

I expect that Nicola Sturgeon will assume power fairly early on even in the event of a Yes vote. Certainly if there is a No vote.

 

Cameron will obviously be deposed if there is a Yes vote. Very weak position in the case of a narrow No vote too.

 

It all comes together then........

 

The Queen gets booted out and replaced by Queen Nicola the First of Scotland.

[FWJ]

 

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that the No vote in Dumfries and Galloway could be as high as 80%. I doubt that, but if it was does such a significant rejection of independence raise doubts as to whether they would want to have the borders re-drawn? Probably not, that's a tad extreme, but I can see there being issues if any area votes so highly for the losing side.

Although all local council areas voted 'yes' to devolution only D & G (and Orkney) voted 'no' to tax varying powers.

 

Unless it's changed, it seems to have been forgotten that the Scottish Parliament can already vary Income Tax by upto 3p in the pound.

[FWJ]

 

 

 

I think they should- I'd rather know what their actual opinion on the matter was , as opposed to trying to stay neutral- they are not neutral- we are their subjects (at present).

THis self preservation thing they have going by being non-commital is pretty poor.

 

As a No voter- if Yes wins I want a flat out Republic,as the queen would become utterly redundant (ie this revenue generation from the royals would apply only to London - sh she would be utterly a burden)

We would also seize the crown estates

I think she would probably continue with her holidays in Balmoral, which I believe is her personal property.

[deesidejambo]

I think she would probably continue with her holidays in Balmoral, which I believe is her personal property.

 

I don't think she will want to come anymore.

[rossthejambo]

Jim Sillars explains his 'tactics'...

http://www.1001campaign.com/campaign-news/jim-sillars-day-reckoning-nationalisation-speech/

 

What's the ?70 million Standard Life building he mentioned? New offices for SL, or is it a building SL Investments are involved in - two very different things.

 

The new building that will get put up at St Andrew Square is being paid for partly by SL Investments, as far as I'm aware they're taking up offices in that building as well as there being shops and a hotel. They're definitely being built with the intention of being used for Standard Life/Standard Life Investments offices as far as I know.

[Gabriel]

I think they should- I'd rather know what their actual opinion on the matter was , as opposed to trying to stay neutral- they are not neutral- we are their subjects (at present).

THis self preservation thing they have going by being non-commital is pretty poor.

 

As a No voter- if Yes wins I want a flat out Republic,as the queen would become utterly redundant (ie this revenue generation from the royals would apply only to London - sh she would be utterly a burden)

We would also seize the crown estates

 

Logically, then, someone might want their opinion(s) on which way to vote in a General Election or indeed any other issue. They need to be neutral on political matters, regardless the issue, just look at the derision poured on the Prince of Wales whenever he picks up his pen (never seems to put it down ). We pay politicians, handsomely, to handle political affairs, and it is only their incompetence in failing to deliver a convincing result that has led to pressure on the Monarchy. Moreover, if you don't really care for continuing with the Monarchy in the result of a 'Yes' vote, it suggests that you may place less store in their opinion now than you profess.