Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[The Mighty Thor]

Ok, replace the word 'offer' with pledge. It is probably better.

 

They have pledged a timetable getting additional powers on the statue book. You either choose to believe it or not, in fact even if you do believe it it you still don't have to vote for it.

 

It may appeal to some...that's politics.

No politics is putting your proposals out there to be scrutinised be that via a manifesto or white paper. Then people know what you stand for, believe in or are proposing (unless you're the liberal democrats then you'll just side with whoever wins).

So in this historic, life changing referendum we are to vote No to receive, well actually we've no idea what and we've no idea when, pending discussions that may never happen?

 

I'm sorry but that's a very casual attitude to something which may affect the lives of over 55 million people. It not only short changes Scots but every other UK citizen.

[JamboGraham]

 

If devo max was always on the table then surely this will have been detailed and costed out so lets see it. I'm sure the rUK residents would love to see just how much more of the UK's GDP is going to be spunked on the sponging whinging jocks? no?

 

It hasn't always been on the table, it has been added and developed as that is what the campaign is showing that a portion of Scottish voters want.

 

Again, this is just politics...

[The Mighty Thor]

Or just give England independence.

 

In all seriousness, the point about devo max / federalism is that no one has actually asked the English what form of governance they want, if any. The only way a devo max settlement is sustainable for everyone is for similar powers to be granted all around, be that an English parliament or regional parliaments in England.

 

There are people saying that it would be unbalanced if there was an English parliament. Would it really? New South Wales and Victoria's state parliaments here represent many more people than Tasmania's. California is just ever so slightly bigger than Wyoming. These systems seem to work pretty well.

I touched on it earlier. What happens if England want independence. Does wee eck, Johann and the instantly forgettable current Tory leader pile in a tranny van to do the hustings in peckham?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I touched on it earlier. What happens if England want independence. Does wee eck, Johann and the instantly forgettable current Tory leader pile in a tranny van to do the hustings in peckham?

 

 

Maybe that's the answer for No. Send up Del Boy to sell devo max!

[GarryJ-o-s]

I think the silent majority will see us through with a no.

 

I fear the yes voter won't take this lightly when the no vote comes in

 

It will be a 'No' next Thursday.

 

Politics has a history of these late surges, only for people to elect for the status quo.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995

 

This is the Quebec referendum on leaving Canada back in the mid-90's. The 'Yes' side had a 6% lead in the polls by the time came to vote after a month of increasing support (see the article), and the 'No' side won by 1.5%.

Remember also the support the Lib Dems gained in the run up to the last election generated in their voting share being overestimated in the polls by 4.4%, with Labour being underestimated by 2.3%. I would suspect that the vote will be split around 47.5/52.5 Yes/No

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-falvey/yougov-poll_b_5781448.html

 

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

 

I touched on it earlier. What happens if England want independence. Does wee eck, Johann and the instantly forgettable current Tory leader pile in a tranny van to do the hustings in peckham?

 

And we can fly the St George's cross over Holyrood.

[SE16 3LN]

Ooft. Labour supporters look away now.

 

This whole thing has been a disaster for Labour. Big strategic mistake siding with the Tories and the coalition. They should have abstained from campaigning - for the people of Scotland to decide, too important to play politics with, respect the result whatever it is etc etc.

Com on, they support the Union and have been internationalists since inception, even though clause 4 has long been removed from their constitution. Ironically a yes vote may be all that will save the Labour party in Scotland, requiring a massive period of rebuilding to get even a foothold at Holyrood. This being the case, there will be only Nationalist governments in Scotland for a generation to come, in my opinion. Who, after all, is in a place to challenge them?

[Boab]

 

Maybe that's the answer for No. Send up Del Boy to sell devo max!

 

That would be better than the collections of clowns appearing tomorrow.....seriously!

[The Mighty Thor]

It hasn't always been on the table, it has been added and developed as that is what the campaign is showing that a portion of Scottish voters want.

 

Again, this is just politics...

I'm sorry i'm going to have to try to pin you down on this again. It wasn't on the table? Didn't you say it was always an option?

 

Is this a Donald Rumsfeld policy thing where we know we don't know about it but we don't know we don't know about something that might not exist?

 

For the record I've already used my postal vote (which is the political process as far as I understand) and I would have liked to have known about this timetable to have discussion about something which may have been more suitable to the way i voted given the straight arthur/martha options on the ballot paper.

 

That's politics right? Ain't it a bitch.

[Boab]

Com on, they support the Union and have been internationalists since inception, even though clause 4 has long been removed from their constitution. Ironically a yes vote may be all that will save the Labour party in Scotland, requiring a massive period of rebuilding to get even a foothold at Holyrood. This being the case, there will be only Nationalist governments in Scotland for a generation to come, in my opinion. Who, after all, is in a place to challenge them?

 

I think your last bit is correct.A "No" and the BT parties in Scotland will get slaughtered.

[Ulysses]

I got roasted earlier for suggesting we would get at least the same treatment as Ireland....

 

 

 

 

 

You might want to rethink that. Ireland joined the EEC in 1973. We first applied in 1961 and were rejected. We then applied in 1967 and were rejected again. That means it took nearly 12 years from the time we applied to actually get in.

 

[JamboGraham]

 

 

No politics is putting your proposals out there to be scrutinised be that via a manifesto or white paper. Then people know what you stand for, believe in or are proposing (unless you're the liberal democrats then you'll just side with whoever wins).

So in this historic, life changing referendum we are to vote No to receive, well actually we've no idea what and we've no idea when, pending discussions that may never happen?

 

I'm sorry but that's a very casual attitude to something which may affect the lives of over 55 million people. It not only short changes Scots but every other UK citizen.

 

The proposals for each party have been published for months, the timetable pledge was made today. If you believe that there is value in the proposals, are prepared to accept that some rather than all will be implemented, and you believe that the timetable will be delivered then you may want to consider voting No, if not then vote Yes.

 

In my view this is not casual politics, this is aspirational campaigning. Yes have been doing it for months, much to the head scratching of many in the no camp. It is frustrating but it does seem to be effective and it is very difficult to campaign against without sounding negative (also known as scaremongering).

[Oscar da house cat]

Challenged a few Yes supporters on what a fairer scotland means. Still no explanation......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gabriel]

It hasn't always been on the table, it has been added and developed as that is what the campaign is showing that a portion of Scottish voters want.

 

Again, this is just politics...

 

Surely it is still being added to and subtracted from, so it is still being developed, which makes it difficult for voters to understand . You are right to say 'it is just politics' but it is bad politics. None of these points has been put before Parliament, something which has infuriated backbench politicians as such practice is in itself undemocratic. The assumption that the Commons and Lords will somehow rush through any old change to placate the Scots and save the faces of the leaders is surely wrong. Constitutional legislation requires time to create and check, which should make voters wary about accepting vague promises or fixed timetables.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Gabriel

[Oscar da house cat]

It's all smoke and mirrors. Once full independence is delivered Salmond and his neocon pals Putin and Murdoch will reap rich spoils. Sorry oils......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oscar da house cat]

Little known fact Murdoch is a major investor in several oil companies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[The Real Maroonblood]

 

Challenged a few Yes supporters on what a fairer scotland means. Still no explanation......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is that right.

Challenged a few no supporters the reason for voting No.

They were scared.

[JamboGraham]

 

 

I'm sorry i'm going to have to try to pin you down on this again. It wasn't on the table? Didn't you say it was always an option?

 

Is this a Donald Rumsfeld policy thing where we know we don't know about it but we don't know we don't know about something that might not exist?

 

For the record I've already used my postal vote (which is the political process as far as I understand) and I would have liked to have known about this timetable to have discussion about something which may have been more suitable to the way i voted given the straight arthur/martha options on the ballot paper.

 

That's politics right? Ain't it a bitch.

 

I didn't say it was always an option. I said that the proposals have been published by the parties for months but the three parties did no more to follow that up. What they added today was a timetable which I agree would have been useful before voting started but if the polls are starting to move what do you do?

[Oscar da house cat]

[modedit, off topic post removed]

[RosscoC]

Jim Sillars and Ian Davidson tearing strips of each other on BBC2. Brilliant

[Oscar da house cat]

 

Is that right.

Challenged a few no supporters the reason for voting No.

They were scared.

 

And rightly so. Just who will benefit from an independent Scotland and how.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheMaganator]

 

 

The White Paper is only there to show what the SNP would do if they were then elected in an independent Scotland. Voting yes isn't voting for the SNP or Alex Salmond.

 

Miliband and co teaming up with Cameron on a trip to Scotland could turn out to be the biggest own goal Better Together could score.

This is not true.

 

Salmond said at the last debate - if we vote Yes he will take that as his mandate to negotiate our separation the terms of the White Paper.

 

That is one of the few certainties in this debate - if we vote Yes Salmond will attempt to give us the White Paper.

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't believe the SNP campaigned on a platform of devo max, did they?

 

Absolutely not, but the voters of Scotland clearly voted for change by putting the SNP in power at Holyrood. Independence, or any variation of additional powers would equal change.

 

It is now up the voters again to decide what level of change they wish (and we should probably add into the mix that each voter will estimate the likelihood of each party or group being able to deliver that change).

[The Mighty Thor]

And rightly so. Just who will benefit from an independent Scotland and how.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The rUK. Removing the burden of Scotland and her hoardes of sponging benefit scroungers will improve the economy of the rUK.

[SE16 3LN]

I think your last bit is correct.A "No" and the BT parties in Scotland will get slaughtered.

Yes or no they will get slaughtered. The SNP will be delivering the great new vision for Scotland with a huge majority for years to come. The Labour party in Scotland are now unelectable.

[FWJ]

Or just give England independence.

 

In all seriousness, the point about devo max / federalism is that no one has actually asked the English what form of governance they want, if any. The only way a devo max settlement is sustainable for everyone is for similar powers to be granted all around, be that an English parliament or regional parliaments in England.

 

There are people saying that it would be unbalanced if there was an English parliament. Would it really? New South Wales and Victoria's state parliaments here represent many more people than Tasmania's. California is just ever so slightly bigger than Wyoming. These systems seem to work pretty well.

 

Weren't there referendums in the north of England about 10 years ago concerning setting up regional parliaments which overwhelmingly rejected the idea?

 

And this too, of course http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Edited September 9, 2014 by FWJ

[The Mighty Thor]

Yes or no they will get slaughtered. The SNP will be delivering the great new vision for Scotland with a huge majority for years to come. The Labour party in Scotland are now unelectable.

And therefore by default the Labour party in the UK will not see power for many years to come. Their constant saving grace was the perennial Tory implosion over Europe however Nigel Farage has cut a big hole in that safety net.

 

The TUC is on at the minute and even they are exasperated by the Labour party. Did they ever back the wrong horse?

[The Mighty Thor]

 

Weren't there referendums in the north of England about 10 years ago concerning setting up regional parliaments which were overwhelmingly rejected?

 

10 years is a long time in politics. I suspect they'd get a very different answer today, especially in the North East.

[Ulysses]

The latest JKB voting intentions poll is now up and running - the last such poll ahead of voting day.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/144357-how-will-you-vote-jkb-independence-referendum-poll-september-2014/

[EIEIO]

 

That's certainly true. Scotland will get forgotten if it's a no vote. The promises will be hollow. Politics in action.

 

That said, Scotland has a warped sense of self-importance and entitlement. As many people live in Yorkshire as live in Scotland.

The reason Scotland is different to a county like Yorkshire is that it has its own legal and education systems , churches and political parties etc. The population may be comparable but little else.

 

[JamboGraham]

 

 

 

Surely it is still being added to and subtracted from, so it is still being developed, which makes it difficult for voters to understand . You are right to say 'it is just politics' but it is bad politics. None of these points has been put before Parliament, something which has infuriated backbench politicians as such practice is in itself undemocratic. The assumption that the Commons and Lords will somehow rush through any old change to placate the Scots and save the faces of the leaders is surely wrong. Constitutional legislation requires time to create and check, which should make voters wary about accepting vague promises or fixed timetables.

 

I don't disagree with you Gabriel.

 

However, I genuinely believe that your final sentence should equally apply to much of the Yes offer.

[Gabriel]

David Cameron will appeal directly to the Scottish voters in his emotional letter to be published tomorrow. Oh, by the way, it's being published in the Daily Mail.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Weren't there referendums in the north of England about 10 years ago concerning setting up regional parliaments which overwhelmingly rejected the idea?

 

And this too, of course http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

That was Prescott's brainchild in NE England. No one was interested.

 

Now whether the Scotland debate ignites regional feelings in England remains to be seen.

[Brandt]

Is there anybody thats voting no have a feeling its going to be a yes victory? And vice versa.

 

Genuine question.

[Hasselhoff]

Is there anybody thats voting no have a feeling its going to be a yes victory? And vice versa.

 

Genuine question.

 

I've voted no and sadly I think it will be a yes now.

 

 

[TheMaganator]

Is there anybody thats voting no have a feeling its going to be a yes victory? And vice versa.

 

Genuine question.

Nope. I'm confident No will win.

[TheMaganator]

Here's some sobering reading for us all in the event of a Yes vote.

 

If this is to be met with the usual 'scaremongering' - can I ask what the agenda is?

 

"Here is the Credit Suisse note this morning on the shock in store for Scotland if it chooses to break up our Union, and if Britain declines to come to the rescue. It expects: recession; deposit flight; 20pc devaluation; 5/10pc cut in wages.

Just so you know, it is written by Andrew Garthwaite, Marina Pronina, Robert Griffiths, Nicolas Wylenzek, Richard Kersley, and Ashlee Ramanathan, a mix of nationalities."

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100028065/credit-suisse-warns-of-grave-deflationary-shock-for-scotland/

[FWJ]

That was Prescott's brainchild in NE England. No one was interested.

 

Now whether the Scotland debate ignites regional feelings in England remains to be seen.

 

That's as may be (although referendums were also planned for the North-West and Yorkshire/Humberside) - but they were asked and it was overwhelmingly rejected. I'm not aware of any groundswell of support for regional government in England, other than in Cornwall, and even there it's limited.

 

The English also overwhelmingly rejected a change to how their politicians are elected.

Edited September 9, 2014 by FWJ

[rossthejambo]

 

Is there anybody thats voting no have a feeling its going to be a yes victory? And vice versa.

 

Genuine question.

 

There's a fair few people in my work getting worried that it'll now be a yes victory.

 

[leginten]

 

 

Gordon Brown look away now. Fillited. Absolutely rent asunder.

 

It was also good to see the appalling Brian Wilson getting an honourable mention.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

 

There's a fair few people in my work getting worried that it'll now be a yes victory.

There's a few worried. That's why we're seeing headlines like this in the FT & Sterling took a pounding yesterday.

 

As I said yesterday - at least the uncertainty gone. We now know what waits for us if we vote Yes.

 

Had a couple of pints with a lawyer & fund manager tonight - both discussing what they think they'll have to do on the 19th if we vote Yes to try and reassure their clients.

 

Was at a law conference this morning. Whilst Salmond was getting cheers outside the conveyancers were discussing how they're being affected already - 'Residential house sales have fallen off a cliff' was said numerous times in various forms.

 

Read that Telegraph blog above - that's from economists with no BT agenda

 

Edited September 9, 2014 by TheMaganator

[Ivan Drago]

Is there anybody thats voting no have a feeling its going to be a yes victory? And vice versa.

 

Genuine question.

 

I'm voting no but think it will be a yes victory.

[hughesie27]

I'm Yes and think No will win it at about 54/46.

 

Imagine a lot of folk might want to vote Yes but when push comes to shove their short sightedness will rule.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

 

There's a few worried. That's why we're seeing headlines like this in the FT & Sterling took a pounding yesterday.

 

As I said yesterday - at least the uncertainty gone. We now know what waits for us if we vote Yes.

 

Had a couple of pints with a lawyer & fund manager tonight - both discussing what they think they'll have to do on the 19th if we vote Yes to try and reassure their clients.

 

Was at a law conference this morning. Whilst Salmond was getting cheers outside the conveyancers were discussing how they're being affected already - 'Residential house sales have fallen off a cliff' was said numerous times in various forms.

 

Read that Telegraph blog above - that's from economists with no BT agenda

 

 

You really are nailing your colours to the mast here. Do you not worry that you'll look a wee bit silly if yes wins and everything is pretty normal in a year. Serious question by the way. How are you so sure of these outcomes when even the BT leaders have indicated otherwise?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

That's as may be (although referendums were also planned for the North-West and Yorkshire/Humberside) - but they were asked and it was overwhelmingly rejected. I'm not aware of any groundswell of support for regional government in England, other than in Cornwall, and even there it's limited.

 

The English also overwhelmingly rejected a change to how their politicians are elected.

As did Scotland.

 

As someone who uses AV here, that was an intelligent decision.

[leginten]

 

 

 

 

I didn't say it was always an option. I said that the proposals have been published by the parties for months but the three parties did no more to follow that up. What they added today was a timetable which I agree would have been useful before voting started but if the polls are starting to move what do you do?

 

You abide by the Edinburgh Agreement, maybe? This is all beginning to look suspiciously like a government-backed initiative and, given that there is as yet no agreement between the No parties on the exact detail of whatever "devo max" type powers are going to be offered, by definition it will be a new package. Again, I'm surprised that Yes is failing to make capital out of this, as with the nonsense of the new package coming after voting has started.

[JyTees]

When exactly are we going to hear precise details about the enhanced powers package? Have they cobbled it together yet? Do they agree with each other on what it should contain? How binding will it be? How many more people will already have voted by the time we actually find out what's in it? Why only now?

 

For a campaign that wanted chapter and verse from the other side on anything and everything even before any post-referendum settlement was reached, they're awfully, awfully light on substance and detail.

 

Meanwhile the Guardian reports that the Treasury is only now putting together a team to deal with the possible consequences of a Yes vote. I'd call that negligent in the extreme.

 

Funny that. A Yes man demanding precise details from the No camp.

 

 

[Sydney]

I am more and more coming around to a "yes" way of thinking (although to be fair, I can't vote, and don't ever plan on living back in Scotland).

 

If "Yes" wins, I think Scotland will be a financially and intellectually poorer country, with less international presence and no place at the top tables of global decision making, but at least the Scottish people will have the right to govern themselves.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

 

Scotland need to reapply and be readmitted. And all 28 member states then need to agree. The Spanish have already stated their opposition, due to the precedent that may then apply to their successionist areas.

 

EU readmission is not guaranteed

 

The Spanish have done nothing of the sort. What an outright lie.

[Jambo, Goodbye]

 

 

Funny that. A Yes man demanding precise details from the No camp.

 

There has been nothing from three no campaign to give us any insight on our future after a no vote. Not a hint. Why should the questions flow one way? It's meant to be a two way debate after all.