Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[Beezer]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Right now it's able to present itself to the electorate as the defender of Scottish interests in a hostile environment (Westminster). If Scotland became independent there'd be no need for that position anymore and a number of nationalist voters would probably move (back) to the other parties.

The same thing would probably happen in an independent Bavaria which I doubt would see the Christian Democrats run away with every election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Which would save the SNP from having to follow through on their promises.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Right now it's able to present itself to the electorate as the defender of Scottish interests in a hostile environment (Westminster). If Scotland became independent there'd be no need for that position anymore and a number of nationalist voters would probably move (back) to the other parties.

The same thing would probably happen in an independent Bavaria which I doubt would see the Christian Democrats run away with every election.

Would Scotland retain the British parties as they exist up there though? UKIP, for starters, would be irrelevant in their current form up in Scotland.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Right now it's able to present itself to the electorate as the defender of Scottish interests in a hostile environment (Westminster). If Scotland became independent there'd be no need for that position anymore and a number of nationalist voters would probably move (back) to the other parties.

The same thing would probably happen in an independent Bavaria which I doubt would see the Christian Democrats run away with every election.

Look at how badly the Bloc Québécois did in the last election.

[afleitch]

Scotland goes through periods of political dominance; the Liberals from 1832 to the 20's. the Unionists from the 20's to the 50's and Labour from the 50's to the 2000's. Westminster aside, the SNP is already the 'party of government'; it's won every national election bar the 2010 GE since 2007

[DL]

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

[EPG]

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.

Yes, you could. But cohort effects are usually weaker than the impact of age on political preferences. That caveat is not an iron law, though. Scottish independence wouldn't have got this close to victory 30 years ago, when the UK's population was younger overall. So it's likely that there is some cohort effect as well as the (natural?) preference of older voters for the familiar and the traditional.

The referendum is all about political gain and nothing else.  If Yes wins, then the SNP would essentially become Scotland's "Natural Governing Party" by default.

Hardly. Look at Westminster. On bread-and-butter, sovereign-level political matters, Labour outpolls the SNP 2:1 even when losing the UK as a whole.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

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

[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. 

[DL]

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.

Actually for a long time a big part of the sovereignist project in Quebec has been built around a sort of cultural narcissism of "we are these enlightened social democratic, post-modern environmentalists in Quebec being dragged down by all those mouth breathing rednecks in the rest of Canada"...but now Canada is governed by the Conservatives who are even more unpopular in Quebec than the British Tories are in Scotland...and yet somehow that doesn't work. Even with a very rightwing federal government with almost no Quebec representation - support for Quebec independence has faded badly and in desperation the sovereignist movement has gotten into xenophobic immigrant bashing etc...

What happens to the zest for independence in Scotland in a few years when all the North Sea oil runs out and Scotland no longer deludes itself into thinking it can afford to go it alone?

[politicus]

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.

Actually for a long time a big part of the sovereignist project in Quebec has been built around a sort of cultural narcissism of "we are these enlightened social democratic, post-modern environmentalists in Quebec being dragged down by all those mouth breathing rednecks in the rest of Canada"...but now Canada is governed by the Conservatives who are even more unpopular in Quebec than the British Tories are in Scotland...and yet somehow that doesn't work. Even with a very rightwing federal government with almost no Quebec representation - support for Quebec independence has faded badly and in desperation the sovereignist movement has gotten into xenophobic immigrant bashing etc...

What happens to the zest for independence in Scotland in a few years when all the North Sea oil runs out and Scotland no longer deludes itself into thinking it can afford to go it alone?

AFAIK language was still at the heart of the popular appeal of Quebec nationalism. How many people actually bought into the construction you are describing?  

Regarding Scotlands economic future, they have one of the strongest national brands in the world to build on, which gives them some opportunities Quebec never had. A lot will depend on how the attempt to use oil money to reindustrualize the country turns out.

See also: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=198670.msg4300328#msg4300328

[they don't love you like i love you]

Has Nate Silver made a projection yet?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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. 

Scottish political and social discourse is different, but that's mostly because Scotland has (and always has had) separate institutions and administrative policies to England.¹ The idea that people in Scotland have radically different 'values' - collectivist rather than individualist, inherently radical rather than inherently conservative, tolerant rather than bigoted, community minded rather than materialistic and all the rest - to people south of the Tweed is tiresome and hoary bullsh!t.² There is remarkably little evidence for any of it. Materialism and bigotry are not hard to find in Scotland while radicalism and tolerance are not hard to find in England. When Scottish Nationalists talk about England I hear descriptions of a country that I do not recognise.

Of course a lot of people in Scotland believe all that, but then a lot of people in England believe that Scotland is a postindustrial wasteland populated entirely by sour-faced misers and violent alcoholics and I surely don't need to point out that that is beyond bogus.

Scottish Nationalism is driven instead by the old belief that as Scotland forms a separate society with its own distinct culture - and that it is dwarfed by England and English concerns - it would be better off running its own affairs. Most Scottish voters hate the Tories not because they're right-wing, but because during the 1980s and 1990s they became associated with opposing Scottish interests. Increasingly I suspect that an independent Scotland would be afflicted with a particularly weird case of sinistrisme...

<sub>1. Prior to devolution this was all run via the old Scottish Office; the Secretary of State for Scotland controlled (most) domestic policies in Scotland in much the way that the First Minister does under the current arrangement.

2. Some people in Wales make the same argument and that's precious bullsh!t too.</sub>

[Iosif]

The number of people with 'cheap-seats' views on this issue is remarkable.

Haha.

[Krago]

My friend and I just arrived in Glasgow from Canada (Ontario) as 'referendum tourists'.  We're travelling to Edinburgh on Wednesday, and are looking for a good place to watch the results come in early on Friday morning (2am to 7am!).  Any suggestions?

P.S. If any Scottish Forumites would be willing to share their opinions with us over an ale or two, we're buying!

[politicus]

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. 

Scottish political and social discourse is different, but that's mostly because Scotland has (and always has had) separate institutions and administrative policies to England.¹ The idea that people in Scotland have radically different 'values' - collectivist rather than individualist, inherently radical rather than inherently conservative, tolerant rather than bigoted, community minded rather than materialistic and all the rest - to people south of the Tweed is tiresome and hoary bullsh!t.² There is remarkably little evidence for any of it. Materialism and bigotry are not hard to find in Scotland while radicalism and tolerance are not hard to find in England. When Scottish Nationalists talk about England I hear descriptions of a country that I do not recognise.

Of course a lot of people in Scotland believe all that, but then a lot of people in England believe that Scotland is a postindustrial wasteland populated entirely by sour-faced misers and violent alcoholics and I surely don't need to point out that that is beyond bogus.

Scottish Nationalism is driven instead by the old belief that as Scotland forms a separate society with its own distinct culture - and that it is dwarfed by England and English concerns - it would be better off running its own affairs. Most Scottish voters hate the Tories not because they're right-wing, but because during the 1980s and 1990s they became associated with opposing Scottish interests. Increasingly I suspect that an independent Scotland would be afflicted with a particularly weird case of sinistrisme...

Well, you make a caricature out of my position. I would never claim Scots are less materialistic or more tolerant than the English, that would be stupid. They have fewer immigrants, so they have fewer ethnic conflicts on average, but that's about it. There is precious little radicalism in Scottish politics, but in my view a relatively high degree of consensus regarding basic values. I do believe Scotland is more community minded in the sense that they accept a higher degree of common responsibility for social problems than people in (especially Southern) England.

This difference is especially true for centre-right voters. The Scottish centre-right composed mainly of “Tartan Tories” from SNP and LibDems and relatively few Conservatives seems on average to have views that are closer to Scandinavian mainstream centre-right parties than English Tories, who generally have positions that are quite a bit to the right of whats mainstream here. So in that way, Scotland has more of a “Social Democratic ethos” as Kim Minke, who is head of the Danish Cultural Institute in Edinburgh, phrased it. Not that Scots are all Social Democrats, but that most of centre-right voters accept a relatively large role for the public sector and a high degree of responsibility for the weak, as is the case in Scandinavia. Labour voters - on the other hand - seems to be fairly similar in England and Scotland, but there are just more of them north of the border. The equilibrium in Scottish social attitudes is therefore to the left of England. The left is not more radical, but its larger and the right is more centrist giving Scotland a different center of gravity on the socioeconomic scale.

Of course the fact that Scotland is a cultural nation and retained its own separate institutions after the union is the foundation for Scottish nationalism existing at all. Still, the different perception of the role and size of the public sector and a higher emphasis on social cohesion seems to be driving much of the independence project. The idea (dream) that Scotland can create a society that's more inclusive, green, progressive and community based and with smaller class barriers than the present UK seems rather essential to many separatists (but far from all, of course).

Your claim that the Scottish animosity towards Thatcher was not related to ideology seems strange. Thatcherism was perceived as alien in Scotland. The Unionist Conservative tradition in Scotland was far more about “God, King and country”-patriotism and less about low taxes, union busting and privatization than her brand of Conservatism. Her deindustrialization of the country was also a direct result of her ideological views. While "its Scotlands oil" ignited the nationalist flame, it was clearly the Thatcher governments splashing oil on the bonfire that made it big enough to become a force to be reckoned with. And that wasn't just because of her arrogance, an alien set of values played a part in this.

I do agree that there has been written quite a large amount of BS about the difference between English individualism and Scottish collctivism (a large amount of it written by English academics...), but its both my personal experience and my impression from what I have read on the subject that there is a real difference. Still, Scandinavians (ie Danes and Norwegians) may be biased on this since we simply feel closer to Scots culturally and that may influence our perception of their political culture and values.

[Badger]

@EPG: I see your point, but what I'm saying is that such a utterly drastic proposed change should revert to the status quo of union unless there is a concerted society-wide, if not consensus, at least overwhelming mandate. A 51% yes vote and a 51% no vote both should result in continued union as neither is indicative of the overwhelming mandate that should accompany as momentus a decision as independence. I'm not necessarily saying 65% shouldn't be enough (though I'm not sure 2/3 is insufficient), but at least 60% should be.

Simply put, independence seems premature to put it mildly for any country where opposition is in the high 40 percents.

edit by el caudillo: take the schoolyard brawl elsewhere

[Hash]

Note: I've deleted a few posts. I don't care for whatever schoolyard brawl some people are embroiled in here, but take it elsewhere. Don't litter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Will BBC be able to cover an election without the use of a swingometer?

[Matty]

Why are Scottish women so supportive of the "No" side?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why are Scottish women so supportive of the "No" side?

Why would they be supportive of 'Yes'?

[politicus]

Why are Scottish women so supportive of the "No" side?

Women are more risk averse than men, that's a phenomenon you can find in all types of decisionmaking (from the financial markets to surgeon procedures and driving habits).

Independence is risky, the union feels safer - especially since women need the welfare state more than men, on average.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why are Scottish women so supportive of the "No" side?

Women are more risk averse than men, that's a phenomenon you can find in all types of decisionmaking (from the financial markets to surgeon procedures and driving habits).

Independence is risky, the union feels safer - especially since women need the welfare state more than men, on average.

I don't know if it's women being less risk-adverse, but men perhaps connecting their 'Scottishness' to their masculinity.

[Joe Republic]

The most important question that we, the Atlas Forum, should be asking is... What kind of detail of results maps can we expect to see?  By Westminster/Holyrood constituency?  By council ward??