Scottish Independence Referendum - 2014

[Sibboleth]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

[wormyguy]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

[politicus]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

Thats a good point, but Blair was a political phenomenon (back when he was popular) and can be interpreted as the exception, that proves the rule. English Labour would be in trouble without Scotland and
permanent majorities are not unheard of. Bavarian CSU is a good example where the SPD was unable to break their hold on power for decades despite being centrist.

[bore]

Its worth noting as well ,that for all their lack of seats in Westminster there are actually quite a lot of influential Scottish Tories parachuted into safe English seats like Rifkind, Fox, Gove etc ( Even Cameron has got quite a bit of Scottish heritage) so Scottish Tories have a disproportional influence. These sort of people as well as some idealistic unionists (some politicians do actually have beliefs) would be for a no vote even if it does give the Tories an electoral advantage.

Although the impact of Scotland leaving on politics at least is overrated for the reasons that Sibboleth mentioned, and I also agree with wormyguy that a permanent majority wouldn't exist anyway because Labour would be able to adapt to it.

[Sibboleth]

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

So what you're suggesting is that the Tories ought (if they knew what was good for them) support breaking up the UK (and lose all kind of important strategic and economic resources) in order to secure would would be, in practice, a comparatively minor electoral advantage? Makes perfect sense, though only after a few glasses of gin and a long stare at the attractive woman who's picture always graces the front of the paper.

[Sibboleth]

Thats a good point, but Blair was a political phenomenon (back when he was popular) and can be interpreted as the exception, that proves the rule.

Had no idea that Blair led the Labour Party in the 1970s (or 1960s when, of course, Labour won an outright majority of English seats in 1966).

English Labour would be in trouble without Scotland and permanent majorities are not unheard of. Bavarian CSU is a good example where the SPD was unable to break their hold on power for decades despite being centrist.

Whatever England is, it isn't Bavaria...

[wormyguy]

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

So what you're suggesting is that the Tories ought (if they knew what was good for them) support breaking up the UK (and lose all kind of important strategic and economic resources) in order to secure would would be, in practice, a comparatively minor electoral advantage? Makes perfect sense, though only after a few glasses of gin and a long stare at the attractive woman who's picture always graces the front of the paper.

Well I imagine the Scots wouldn't be so vindictive as to impose border controls or tariffs on their more southerly cousins or vice-versa, so the economic consequences would be fairly minor.  (What's a "strategic resource," anyway?  Something that makes it easier to fight wars?  I'm all for breaking up all those...).  The oil will be gone in c. 20 years or so anyway.  I'm also biased in favor of smaller countries, which as a general rule tend to be rather better-run.  Also, the small advantage gets larger if Wales or even possibly the North follow.  Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).

[The Mikado]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

I'm aware of that.  I was interpreting Wormy's statement.

[afleitch]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

I think that independence would be good for Scottish Tories. I can’t see any other way for ‘conservatism’ to survive otherwise. Though perhaps, given what conservatism in Scotland used to be it’s no bad thing that it’s not in a position of strength.

[bore]

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

So what you're suggesting is that the Tories ought (if they knew what was good for them) support breaking up the UK (and lose all kind of important strategic and economic resources) in order to secure would would be, in practice, a comparatively minor electoral advantage? Makes perfect sense, though only after a few glasses of gin and a long stare at the attractive woman who's picture always graces the front of the paper.

Well I imagine the Scots wouldn't be so vindictive as to impose border controls or tariffs on their more southerly cousins or vice-versa, so the economic consequences would be fairly minor.  (What's a "strategic resource," anyway?  Something that makes it easier to fight wars?  I'm all for breaking up all those...).  The oil will be gone in c. 20 years or so anyway.  I'm also biased in favor of smaller countries, which as a general rule tend to be rather better-run.  Also, the small advantage gets larger if Wales or even possibly the North follow.  Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).

I'd be surprised if the rest of the UK didn't just keep the union flag, not just because it would be made much uglier, but also for various reasons the rump of the UK will be trying to show that not much has changed (e.g UN Security Council) so will keep the flag the same.

[YL]

Well I imagine the Scots wouldn't be so vindictive as to impose border controls or tariffs on their more southerly cousins or vice-versa, so the economic consequences would be fairly minor.  (What's a "strategic resource," anyway?  Something that makes it easier to fight wars?  I'm all for breaking up all those...).  The oil will be gone in c. 20 years or so anyway.  I'm also biased in favor of smaller countries, which as a general rule tend to be rather better-run.  Also, the small advantage gets larger if Wales or even possibly the North follow.  Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).

I'd be surprised if the rest of the UK didn't just keep the union flag, not just because it would be made much uglier, but also for various reasons the rump of the UK will be trying to show that not much has changed (e.g UN Security Council) so will keep the flag the same.

I suppose we could always argue that the St. Andrew's cross represents Berwick on Tweed...

[YL]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

Thats a good point, but Blair was a political phenomenon (back when he was popular) and can be interpreted as the exception, that proves the rule. English Labour would be in trouble without Scotland and
permanent majorities are not unheard of. Bavarian CSU is a good example where the SPD was unable to break their hold on power for decades despite being centrist.

In addition to what Al has said, Blair wasn't that popular any more by 2005.

It would make a difference, but a small one compared with what a lot of people seem to think.  There just aren't enough Scottish seats, and they're not that monolithically Labour.

[politicus]

Thats a good point, but Blair was a political phenomenon (back when he was popular) and can be interpreted as the exception, that proves the rule.

Had no idea that Blair led the Labour Party in the 1970s (or 1960s when, of course, Labour won an outright majority of English seats in 1966).

In your usual attempt to put people down you are rather missing the point Comrade Too-Clever-by-Half. All Social Democratic parties in Europe are much weaker than they were in the 60s and 70s so elections from back then arent really relevant when discussing future scenarios.

English Labour would be in trouble without Scotland and permanent majorities are not unheard of. Bavarian CSU is a good example where the SPD was unable to break their hold on power for decades despite being centrist.

Its just an example of a party system with a long term dominant Conservative party. But Southern England is actually almost as Conservative on economics as Bavaria, so its not that far fetched.

[Leftbehind]

Well neither is the Tory party as strong as it used to be. It's done wonders in alienating itself in the North and Wales, and the Tories weren't anywhere near as divisive in the past as they are now.

I don't think it's all that relevant comparing the weakening of European social democrats, as most aren't in a FPTP system like the UK, and they can vote elsewhere without knowing they'll be letting the Tories in.

I don't accept the 'Tory England / Labour move Right/Blairite to win there' argument, received wisdom at its worst.

[bore]

How many national parliaments have actually had a permanent majority for one party or another? I know sub national legislatures like the Bavarian state house, West Virginia, most of the deep south etc have had one party rule but I don't think that is really the same thing.

[Sibboleth]

In your usual attempt to put people down you are rather missing the point Comrade Too-Clever-by-Half. All Social Democratic parties in Europe are much weaker than they were in the 60s and 70s so elections from back then arent really relevant when discussing future scenarios.

It is regrettably true that the Labour Party is generically weaker than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, but then (and less regrettably) the Tories are also generically weaker. And the reality of the electoral system (and the distribution of votes) means that what matters is the direct competition between the two parties.

Its just an example of a party system with a long term dominant Conservative party. But Southern England is actually almost as Conservative on economics as Bavaria, so its not that far fetched.

Southern England is mostly right-wing, yeah. But Northern England is one of the great traditional strongholds of labour and Labour, and the Midlands (when averaged out) tends to be highly volatile. A Scotlandless UK would also include Wales (of course) which always returns a majority Labour delegation to Westminster. So unless the plan is to find some way of disenfranchising everywhere north of the Severn-Wash line...

[True Federalist]

 Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).

You have got to be kidding.  It's an ugly and awkward flag.  About the only thing good that can be said about it is that it is not an insipid tricolor.

[Vasall des Midas]

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

So what you're suggesting is that the Tories ought (if they knew what was good for them) support breaking up the UK (and lose all kind of important strategic and economic resources) in order to secure would would be, in practice, a comparatively minor electoral advantage? Makes perfect sense, though only after a few glasses of gin and a long stare at the attractive woman who's picture always graces the front of the paper.

Well I imagine the Scots wouldn't be so vindictive as to impose border controls or tariffs on their more southerly cousins or vice-versa, so the economic consequences would be fairly minor.  (What's a "strategic resource," anyway?  Something that makes it easier to fight wars?  I'm all for breaking up all those...).  The oil will be gone in c. 20 years or so anyway.  I'm also biased in favor of smaller countries, which as a general rule tend to be rather better-run.  Also, the small advantage gets larger if Wales or even possibly the North follow.  Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).

I'd be surprised if the rest of the UK didn't just keep the union flag, not just because it would be made much uglier, but also for various reasons the rump of the UK will be trying to show that not much has changed (e.g UN Security Council) so will keep the flag the same.

I must insist that Scotland (or Wales, once it chooses Independence ) gets the Security Council seat.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

I just realized that unless the Lib Dems do something really crazy this is going to happen before the next UK election. Hmmm that could shake things up, wonder what the situation would be if there was a majority for Labour but the majority disappeared if Scotland left.

And I'd oppose this.

[bore]

I just realized that unless the Lib Dems do something really crazy this is going to happen before the next UK election. Hmmm that could shake things up, wonder what the situation would be if there was a majority for Labour but the majority disappeared if Scotland left.

And I'd oppose this.

If yes won Scotland wouldn't leave straight away because the exact terms won't have been decided, so there would be a grace period of sorts. But in the long term there would have to be a new election called because Labour couldn't govern and the Conservatives taking power after having "lost" the last election would make them deeply unpopular. I'd guess that if Labour did have a slim majority they would call a new election once the negotiations  had finished. Not that any of that scenario is likely though.

[freefair]

What would happen to Scottish MP's/MEP's/Councillors in English/Welsh seats (and Vica Versa!)?
I know Irish people can stand for election in the UK, would it remain like that? Would Scots living in RestofUK be elidgible for citizenship?

[afleitch]

What would happen to Scottish MP's/MEP's/Councillors in English/Welsh seats (and Vica Versa!)?
I know Irish people can stand for election in the UK, would it remain like that? Would Scots living in RestofUK be elidgible for citizenship?

No doubt they would. I've not heard anything to the contrary. Citizenship, IIRC would be open for those living in Scotland with existing UK citizenship, which makes sense. Those who were born in Scotland but live elsewhere would be able to apply.

[mileslunn]

What would happen to Scottish MP's/MEP's/Councillors in English/Welsh seats (and Vica Versa!)?
I know Irish people can stand for election in the UK, would it remain like that? Would Scots living in RestofUK be elidgible for citizenship?

No doubt they would. I've not heard anything to the contrary. Citizenship, IIRC would be open for those living in Scotland with existing UK citizenship, which makes sense. Those who were born in Scotland but live elsewhere would be able to apply.

You only have to be a commonwealth or EU citizen to vote in local, Welsh, Northern Irish, and European elections and Scotland would almost certainly remain an EU member.  Likewise if you are a commonwealth citizen you can vote in British elections so as long as Scotland was a commonwealth member one could still vote.  I know as a Canadian I would be able to vote if I lived in Britain.  Likewise while Scotland can set its own voting rules and own nationality rules, EU law requires that all EU Citizens be permitted to vote in both European and local elections, although not required for national ones.  They also might just set a minimum residency period too as I believe in Holland and Denmark one can vote in local elections regardless of citizenship if they have resided in the country for a certain number of years.

[Leftbehind]

Wait, Scotland becomes independent and we're still lumped with their exported Tories? FFS.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Just a thought - if Labour were still in power at Westminster, this situation would be....somewhat more interesting, wouldn't it?