Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[politicus]

A slightly off-topic question for the Canadian posters:

What %age of Quebec voters support sovereignity now ?

It has fallen dramatically in recent years and now only about 30-35% would vote Yes in another referendum. The pro-independence Bloc Quebecois was annihilated in the last federal election going from 50 out of 75 Quebec seats in Ottawa to just 4...and then the PQ was crushed in the provincial election election this spring largely because people were afraid they would call another referendum. Its always risky to say "separatism is dead", but the conventional wisdom is that the whole Quebec independence movement is now on life support and is only a past time of an age cohort of baby boomers who associate with with their glory days in the 1970s.

Separatism was supposedly dead at certain points in the early 1990s as well.

One huge difference between the Scottish and Quebec referendums is the question wording. The Scottish wording is very direct, and makes independence clear. Quebec's question was very vague and convoluted.

Oh, I'm sure it wasn't too—

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wat

That's nothing compared to the text of the 1980 referendum question:

The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

The 1980 text is longer, but it is a lot clearer what it is talking about. The 1995 text refers to so many things - and on different levels - that it is virtually impossible to figure out what it actually means - and it seems to be contradicting itself.

[politicus]

Oh ftr, the two polls done the day before the Quebec referendum both showed the Yes side with a 6 pt lead. In that case, the Yes side barely lost. I think that's a reasonable cutoff IMO. If Yes starts flirting with 5-6% leads, they'll take it.

This assumes that Quebec and Scotland are identical cases regarding underpolling of unionism/federalism and that the effect of unionism being the default option (voting safe when you are in the booth) is as strong as it was in Quebec. I tend to say no to both. "No" will do better than the polls, but not Quebec 1995-style better.

(forgive me from sounding like a broken record on this, but every Canadian poster seems to argue this point without looking at the previous pages since DL brought it up)

[politicus]

What will be the future of the SNP in an independent Scotland?

They would attempt to become Fianna Fail Alba (more or less). Whether they'd be successful in that is impossible to tell.

The SNP will sweep all before it in 2016 but without Salmond at the helm (he'll find something else to do) Nicola Sturgeon will lead and become the first FM. It will have a dominant hand in shaping the country. It will probably win in 2021. You're probably right that they will try and be a Scottish 'Fianna Fail'. One party always dominates Scotland and it has shifted from the early 20th Century from Liberal to Unionist to Labour and potentially now to the SNP. If the party holds together it may dominate politics for a generation. The electoral system however might make it the largest party, but the other parties can challenge if they come together.

Labour will suffer in the short term. Lamont will go. The Holyrood wing and the Westminster wing hate each other and will jostle for influence (and seats) in the 2016 election. Might do worse than they did in 2011. After that point, I think they will pick up. However in order to challenge the SNP they might find themselves having to go into some sort of coalition with the Conservatives (think Fine Gael/Labour but reversed in strength) and smaller liberal/green parties. I used to think the SNP would take their place to Labour's right post independence but I think they might sit more socially 'left' initially.

The Liberal Democrats start at such a low point that they will rebrand. Might stumble on for a few elections but given that their vote moved en masse to the SNP in 2011 and probably won't come back, the party might fold.

The Conservatives will get over the result; Ruth Davidson will step aside for Murdo Fraser and position themselves into the biggest cheerleader for the free market and probably become a little more socially conservative. Might actually start to recover.

The Greens will have a good election in 2016 but will remain a hostage to the fortunes of the larger parties.

Tommy Sheridan will be back. We'd see how long he lasts.

I wonder if we'll see a UKIP-esque populist right-wing party grow in Scotland. After all, they do talk about wanting to be like the Scandinavians - what could be more Scandinavian than a raging right-wing group hovering in the background?

A Scottish right wing populist party would presumably be more of a DPP/Sweden Democrats type with anti-immigration + law and order being combined with strong support for a welfare state. I fail to see anything UKIP style or even a parallel to the Norwegian Progress Party being successful.

But presumably both euroscepticism and integration problems would need to be larger for this to happen. Scottish Muslims, notably Pakistanis, seems to be relatively well integrated and Islamophobia is the bread and butter of modern rightwing populism in Europe

[politicus]

Scotland is too valuable a partner for the EU to ditch them. While there might be some stones on the road along the way to membership, its hardly realistic that they would be kept out.

England would have no long term interest in keeping Scotland out. That would just unnecessarily complicate trade.

[politicus]

A good few thousand rUKers living in Scotland going without the vote next Thursday...

Over 700,000 actually.

What sounds very high. Who are they? And is this something the SNP did on purpose or just the result of some technical requirement in British election legislation?

[politicus]

Its 53/47 if you don't include undecideds, that's almost within he margin of error anyway. Its gotta be very close to a tie right now.

[politicus]

I'm still convinced that NO will get about 1% more than the average of final polls since people who decide on referendum day will skew towards the status quo...If you haven't made up your mind to vote Yes by the big day - you will likely be a NO

At least 1% is almost a given, but that's also a far cry from your Quebec 1995 comparison.

[politicus]

If Scotland can't use the £, then what about adopting the U.S. dollar, like Panama or Ecuador? How might that work out?

If SNP really are serious about joining the Nordic Council, as they have talked about, another solution would be to establish a currency union between Scotland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. This would give the Norwegians a much needed devaluation and create a strong currency for the rest of us. It may be slightly too strong for Scotland, but better than using the pound IMO.

[politicus]

Denmark is part of the EU, an independent Scotland would want to be and Norway is adamantly not part of the EU - no way you could create a common currency for a mix of country some in and some out of the EU

Why not? The Danish krone is already in use in three countries where only one of them is an EU member. Plus Norway and Iceland are in the EEA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

[politicus]

Why wouldn't an independent Scotland simply use the Euro - like Ireland?

Because the Eurozone is a bit of a disaster.

[politicus]

Why wouldn't an independent Scotland simply use the Euro - like Ireland?

I think Scotland would have to apply to join the Euro, and I don't know if their economic indicators will support it, not after they take the big economic hit from separation and losing many companies to the U.K.

While Scotland would need to apply to join the Euro, that is not the reason and their economy would easily meet the requirements for membership. The Euro is simply not an attractive option at the moment.

[politicus]

Why wouldn't an independent Scotland simply use the Euro - like Ireland?

I think Scotland would have to apply to join the Euro, and I don't know if their economic indicators will support it, not after they take the big economic hit from separation and losing many companies to the U.K.

While Scotland would need to apply to join the Euro, that is not the reason and their economy would easily meet the requirements for membership. The Euro is simply not an attractive option at the moment.

Alex Salmond is still a politician and the SNP is still a political party. To even whisper about joining the euro would spell electoral armageddon.

If it was in any way feasible, it would've been one of the first suggestions.

Well that was my point when I wrote:

Why wouldn't an independent Scotland simply use the Euro - like Ireland?

Because the Eurozone is a bit of a disaster.

But it got ignored as usual.

[politicus]

ComRes have polled the two local authority areas on the English border:

D&G: No 67%, Yes 33%
Borders: No 68%, Yes 32%

That's actually a bit better for Yes than I would have expected.

[politicus]

If Scotland can dissolve its union with a 50%+1 vote, why shouldn't some of the council areas dissolve their relationship with Scotland with the same such vote?

Scotland is a nation. Council areas are not.

[politicus]

The Zetlanders and Orcadians saying 'no' to independence for Scotland is not the same as saying that in the event of independence that they would wish to remain part of the UK and governed in effect, from London (given than Scotland had left) if that makes sense.

The might not vote for it, but they would go along with it.

One wonders why the "if Canada is divisible, then Quebec is divisible" principle should not apply for Scotland.

Scotland was an independent kingdom before joining the union, Quebec was a British colony before it entered the Canadian confederation. The northern part of Quebec with its sizable native population was added later, while the present boundaries of Scotland have been (almost) stable from the middle ages. So there is a big difference in the history and legal status of those to entities.

Both Orkney and Shetland were ceded from Norway in the 15th century (well technically pawned actually...) to the Scottish kingdom and was a part of the Scottish state for centuries before the union with England.
While they have a bit more Nordic words in their dialects than mainlanders and have retained a few old customs, Zetlanders and Orcadians are Scots. Claiming they wanna go back to Norway once in a while and learning Norwegian in evening classes are part of the sort of pseudo-ethnic local patriotism small regions with a distinct heritage in Europe like to play with. We have a few of those local patriotic micro-nations in Scandinavia as well, such as Elfdalians with their archaic language in Dalarna and the Scanian nationalism. And their is the Cornish nationalism in England.

This phenomenon is a sort of extreme local patriotism and should not be mistaken for actual  secessionist movements even when they use a secessionist discourse.

"To simply say that "Scotland is a nation. Council areas are not" doesn't do it for me; the definition and boundaries of "nations" are nearly always ambiguous and less clear-cut than people imagine them to be.

Scotland is a much more well defined and homogeneous nation than most European nations. The old highland/lowland dividing line is virtually obsolete as the Gaeliec culture has in reality died out outside of the Western Isles (highland (pseudo-)culture has of course on a symbolic level spread to all of Scotland in the form of kilts, bagpipes and tartans etc.). People in the Borders and Galloway do feel Scottish, there is no English minority in southern Scotland and as noted above Zetlanders and Orcadians local patriotism don't make them an ethnic minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Every region feels a bit different, but they still consider themselves Scottish.

[politicus]

A legal question, the Yes vote won what happens in the general election? will the Scottish MPs take their seats and be able to vote despite the fact that they will soon be out of the union? if Labour win due to the Scottish vote what happens?

I feel like a generation of future law students will suffer studying this cluster of a constitutional problem.

Technically there isn't much of a constitutional problem, the Scottish seats are as valid as all others until Scotland actually secedes. If Labour gains a majority they can form a government, if they haven't got a majority any longer when Scotland secedes in 2016 or (more likely) 2017 they will have to resign.

Politically its another matter and some sort of compromise will have to be worked out, but it isn't really a legal issue.

[politicus]

Scotland is a much more well defined and homogeneous nation than most European nations. The old highland/lowland dividing line is virtually obsolete as the Gaeliec culture has in reality died out outside of the Western Isles (highland (pseudo-)culture has of course on a symbolic level spread to all of Scotland in the form of kilts, bagpipes and tartans etc.).

Uh-oh, sounds like someone needs to read up on his Eric Hobsbawn!

I am not male.

I doubt that Hobsbawn - of all people - would disagree with me about the pseudo-Highland culture invented in the early 19th century and its spread across Scotland - including lowland areas completely alien to the original Gaelic culture. Its a well established historical fact.
That the usual symbolic representations of Scottishness are derived from this romantic invention of Highland culture should be obvious.

[politicus]

If Scotland can dissolve its union with a 50%+1 vote, why shouldn't some of the council areas dissolve their relationship with Scotland with the same such vote?

Scotland is a nation. Council areas are not.

"Nation" is but a legal definition. The Parliament would be able to create a few, if it so desires.

Rubbish. Nation is a cultural, historical and emotional entity and dividing up long established nations always cause major trouble. In the case of Scotland carving up the territory is simply unrealistic.

The idea that a parliament can create a nation is ludicrous. They can create
(artificial) states, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish.  

[politicus]

Still, previous polling has showed that the 35-55 age group is the most pro-independence, so if SNP can get the youngs to support Yes that's crucial. But there is a big if regarding commitment and actually showing up


Old unionists on the other hand will vote, at least the ones under 75. I think it could be important whether the usual phenomenon with the very  old (+75) voting to a lesser degree tham the general population will materialize here. How prevalent will the "I have had my time, and will leave it to my children and grandchildren" effect be - I suspect it will be low in this context, since its a strongly emotional issue.

[politicus]

I think if Shetland actually wanted to separate from an independent Scotland and remain in the UK then there would be a case for saying that they were sufficiently geographically and culturally distinct and accepting that.

However, I haven't seen any evidence that this would actually be the case, just a bit of trolling speculation by the No campaign.  It might be more plausible that Shetland would want to be a small independent or semi-independent state in its own right.

Geographically it is obviously distinct. Culturally I would say, that if you stay longer than the average tourist and get a bit beneath the surface it is not a place that feels culturally distinct from Scotland.
There is history and identity, but little actual difference. In this sense it reminds me of Scania (and that is the only sense in which Scania and Shetlands are similar.. ) .

But as you say, this is all theoretical. They don't want to stay in a rump UK. If anything autonomy within an independent Scotland would make the most sense.

Out of curiosty have you visited Shetland or have relatives there?

[politicus]

SNP leader threatens scaremongering business leaders with "day of reckoning".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753279/Scotland-face-10-year-economic-slowdown-independence-warns-business-chief-fresh-blow-Salmond.html

Jim Sillars isn't a member of the SNP

Okay, I see he is a former SNP left winger squeezed out in the early 90s. So its either deliberate manipulation or ignorance when the journalist calls him an "SNP grandee", probably the latter given the source.

So whats Sillars position in the Yes campaign then? (since they have pics of him campaigning with Salmond).

[politicus]

YouGov well/badly ratings for three Westminster leaders in Scotland (these are internals, but still):

Cameron - 27/68
Miliband - 19/74
Clegg - 10/85

EDIT: Oh yes, and the internals also show a 45/48 Yes/No split.

Cameron is the most popular Westminster leader in Scotland? I have to say that I'd never have predicted that...

Nah, he is the least unpopular.

[politicus]

The referendum is nothing to do with popular sovereignty. It is a device which will be used by Parliament to form a future decision on Scottish independence. Everyone accepted 50%+1, probably because this isn't some limit on imperfect representative democracy but a consultative exercise of everyone eligible to vote. Denying independence on, say, a 65% vote would have consequences. It's questionable to argue that a 51% victory would reflect ephemeral, transient whims, whereas a 51% slim defeat reflects earnest, longstanding consensus.

Actually since the elderly are the most solid No voters you could argue that a small defeat is a lot more transient than a small Yes victory.

[politicus]

The referendum is nothing to do with popular sovereignty. It is a device which will be used by Parliament to form a future decision on Scottish independence. Everyone accepted 50%+1, probably because this isn't some limit on imperfect representative democracy but a consultative exercise of everyone eligible to vote. Denying independence on, say, a 65% vote would have consequences. It's questionable to argue that a 51% victory would reflect ephemeral, transient whims, whereas a 51% slim defeat reflects earnest, longstanding consensus.

Actually since the elderly are the most solid No voters you could argue that a small defeat is a lot more transient than a small Yes victory.

That's what everyone said in Quebec after the 1995 referendum but it hasn't turned out that way and the youngest cohort today are totally disinterested in independence

There are some significant differences between Scottish and Quebecois nationalism. In Quebec the main objective was to secure the language and that fight has largely been won making separation less relevant today. French Canadians are also a group that exists in several other parts of Canada and by limiting it to Quebec you abandon part of the group. Scottish identity on the other hand is tied to a well defined homeland with a long history.
The objective of Scottish nationalism has mainly been to be able to create a society dominated by centre-left values and get contol of the local economy. Unless the political culture in England swings heavily to the left this is unlikely to be feasible in Britain at large, so that motive will remain relevant.

[politicus]

The objective of Scottish nationalism has mainly been to be able to create a society dominated by centre-left values and get control of the local economy. Unless the political culture in England swings heavily to the left this is unlikely to be feasible in Britain at large, so that motive will remain relevant.

Clearly Brian Souter bankrolls the SNP in order to bring about a socialist millennium.

Nah, but the party's appeal depends to a large extent on the different political values of Scots. Its not that all Scots are leftists, of course. But there is a different equilibrium in the Scottish social discourse compared to the English.