Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[afleitch]

I hope Al won't object to this going up early, however today the 'Yes' campaign launched;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18162832

One fun facts (or why oil still matters ) to pad it out.

Scotland's GDP 2010/11 (£millions)

Excluding North Sea Oil - 119,149
Including Per Capita Share (Scotland's entitlement as % of UK) - 121,732
Including Geographical Share - 144,820

From The Grauniad

[afleitch]

It's going to be a ridiculously long campaign, so it makes sense to have a thread early, yeah.

On the subject of the launch, though I might be completely wrong about this is it really such a clever idea to kick off a campaign on an issue like this with glitzy parade in the company of a gaggle of Professional Scotsmen Who Now Live Abroad Because Taxes Are Lower There? I would tend to suggest that appeals to post-imperial Scottish civic nationalism and to specific grievances (whether 'accurate' or not) would be more effective than saccharine platitudes.

I think for a launch it went off okay. The idea was to ensure that it didn't look like a Salmond-centric event. Patrick Harvie has been pressing the flesh on the national media for example and I expect Margo (health permitting) and Canavan to do likewise. It came off quite fresh and most importantly, neutral. It will always be the easist launch of the two campaigns and it will be interesting to see what a Labour-Tory-Lib Dem campaign launch will look like (because it has to be co-ordinated). It can't be 'London' driven, it can't be too Scottish Establishment either.

If it can get people signed up and get donations rolling in then it's a sucess. It was always going to be crafted as an underdog campaign; it's what Salmond thrives on. If it can be seen as a groundwell of public support, even if it's feigned it will do very well against a party-political-business campaign from the pro-union side.

[afleitch]

Just to note, I have signed up for the 'Yes' campaign. Long winded explanation to follow...

[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.

[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.

[afleitch]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-labour-dismisses-rebellion-1-2439472

"LABOUR chiefs say a rebellion among its grassroots members in favour of independence lacks “any real support” within party ranks.

A website has been launched called Labour for Independence, which is urging Scottish party leader Johann Lamont to allow members a vote on the constitutional question, with a view to shifting the party’s stance in favour of leaving the UK in the 2014 referendum.

Senior Labour figures say the website, launched by party member Allan Grogan, has attracted plentiful backing from SNP supporters. But the party
insists that members are free to bring policy suggestions before Labour conference."

[afleitch]

Quick ?, do you think the Olympics has had any influence on this at all?  Is the Union Jack or more feelings of "Britishness" gaining any traction among some?

It's kind of late, but I've only just seen the relevant poll: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scottish-independence-rivals-quick-off-blocks-to-claim-olympic-gains-1-2464425

Basically it will have no effect whatsoever, especially because the referendum is another 2 years away, by which time everyone will have forgotten about the olympics. But I think it does show that even if Scotland won the world cup, or Britain swept every medal at the athletic world championships there would be little effect on the vote, because sport doesn''t really matter when it comes to politics in the UK.

This. Though it is worth noting that the vote will be held shortly after the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow so it would be interesting then to compare and contrast.

[afleitch]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638

The deal is struck. Let the shouting begin.

[afleitch]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-oil-benefit-overstated-says-danny-alexander-1-2720955

'THE financial benefit of oil to an independent Scotland is being overstated, according to a senior UK Government minister.

Relying on a comparatively good annual figure to show that oil could make people £500 richer is “misleading”, Chief Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander said.

Taking an average over the 12 years of devolution wipes that figure out - but would leave Scots just £1 out of pocket each year instead, he said.'

---

Yes, you heard it. A whole £1 a year worse off. May as well not hold the vote now

[afleitch]

Am I the only one seeing a degree of genius in this whole vote, by putting the vote in 2014 they ensure the government in London will play nice to Scotland, and not attempt to limit the local autonomy. So even if they lose they will have gotten several years of peace from Loondon, and the crisis may be less bad in 2014, so the risk that London will cut inn Scottish autonomy or budgets afterward will be a lot smaller.

It's a win win result. Even if the Yes vote can only muster 40-45% that's still a large minority. The result is increased autonomy for Scotland regardless of the outcome.

[afleitch]

Scotland would need to reapply to join the EU as a new country, says Latvia's foreign minister. Latvia will be leading the EU at that time. It would be interesting though, would the rest of the UK need to reapply as well.

I can only think of an example where a border was dissolved, not a new one established (the GDR).

All sides need to be honest on this issue. The truth of the matter is no one knows the legal position because it has never happened before. In 1707 Scotland did not become part of England; the two nations joined to become a United Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1801, Ireland formally joined that United Kingdom, so when Ireland left then it left the UK, but the UK existed prior to Ireland and continued to exist legally. However if Scotland leaves the UK having been one of the two nations that founded it, does it mean that what is left of the UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) is a continuing state or will two separate nations be formed? The ‘Kingdom of England’ in 1707 included Wales but also included what is now Northern Ireland because that was part the area that made up the Kingdom of Ireland as proclaimed in the Crown of Ireland Act of 1542 which after the Tudor conquest of Ireland made a united island that at that time was in a personal and political union with the Kingdom of England. So all territory currently considered part of the UK was held by either the Kingdom of England with Ireland in personal union, or by the Kingdom of Scotland. It could be argued that if Scotland leaves this union then what it leaves behind is not Great Britain, which was only formed by the Act of Union but the Kingdom of England and the territories constitutionally bound to it.

This means that the ‘rump UK’ would not the same country that was created in 1707 and therefore has no rights to claim to be a successor state to it. It has no right to retain its Security Council seat and no right to continued membership of the European Union. However you could argue for the contrary, that in 1707 Scotland was technically not dissolved. The Kingdom remained. It’s laws, passed by the Parliament of Scotland remained. It’s legal system (Scots Law) remained. It’s established Church remained.  All that happened is that all legal decisions were made at Westminster in common agreement with England (and later Ireland) and Scotland sent representatives to the new Commons and the new Lords. Some laws had to be tailored or enacted specifically to suit Scots Law. This occurred in such a way that Scotland ceased to be an independent nation and this arrangement was modified upon the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. If Scotland chooses to withdraw from that arrangement in all matters of law then it does so in manner which means that constitutionally Scotland is now an independent state. This therefore means that all treaties and laws etc that the United Kingdom entered into still applies and the ‘rump UK’ is a successor state. Question is where would that leave Scotland?

In terms of precedent, when Czechoslovakia split, neither new nation claimed to be a successor state so there was no problem. Russia claimed successor status to the Soviet Union because it had the ‘agreement’ of the 11 member nations of the C.I.S and this was accepted. Belarus and Ukraine were technically independent members of the UN already and the Baltic states had gained independence before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Furthermore excepting these five nations, the other former states of the Soviet Union were established within the Soviet Union by the Soviet Union from the old Russian SSR which was a continuation of the Russian Empire. So whether the remainder of the UK is considered a successor state depends entirely on what the states themselves decide to do. However it’s worth noting that in Yugoslavia, the UN refused in resolution 777 to recognised Serbia and Montenegro’s claims to be the successor state and the UN said that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist.

[afleitch]

Even if the vote fails, having 40+% of the electorate saying they want to be independent is a major headache for Westminster. Part of the reason I’m voting Yes is because the No’s haven’t outlined what further powers they would give Scotland if the vote fails. I know what independence is and what it means but I don’t know what happens afterwards if we vote No on the pretence that we get more powers if we do. I have a feeling we will be left wanting. Either way, the SNP will likely win again in 2016 anyway so a further vote down the line is a possibility.

[afleitch]

Please don't make me ashamed to be Scottish on this board It's bad enough having to share...

[afleitch]

One year to go.

[afleitch]

Do you know what currency you'll be using yet or whether you'll be allowed to remain in the EU?

The No campaign would have you think that we won't even know what plug sockets we would use Scotland would use the Pound because that was our currency before the union (and was always based against the English pound) The chances are we would use it again and it would initially operate similar to how the Irish Pound did until 1979. Whether we would join the EU? Who knows.

[afleitch]

Ugh.

Either be independent or don't.

All this half way crap is annoying.

If you're going to be independent, have your own damn head of state. Have your own money.

If you're going to be part of the UK, no more devolution of powers. It's already devolved to a ridiculous extent as it is.

Spurious dethronement of the Stewarts aside, the monarch is the monarch of Scotland as both the Kingdoms of Scotland and England share the same lineage. It makes sense to retain that status quo.

Secondly, the Pound has been the currency of Scotland since the 12th Century. In 1603 it was set at a consistant exchange rate with the Pound Sterling and consumed within the Pound Sterling by the Act of Union in 1707. Retaining the currency tied with the Sterling makes perfect ecnomic sense immediately post independence. The Irish Pound was fixed to the Sterling from 1928 to 1979. No one is saying that the Scottish Pound would last that long given the inevitability of the Euro but it's not a stupid idea.

[afleitch]

Two nuggets of news today.

First is a belated posting of the ICM poll suggesting a 53-47 No vote, with the closest poll yet for the Yes campaign and the second is the suggestion by the Director General of the European Commission suggests that an independent Scotland could become an EU member in as little as eighteen months;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25965703

Things are certainly getting interesting again

[afleitch]

It’s an ICM poll. They are the gold standard in UK polling, though as these things go you are only as good as your last victory. It was one of the first firms to pick up the shift to the ‘No’ vote in the AV referendum (‘No’ of course won handsomely). That vote is a reminder that people’s attitudes can shift the closer they get to polling day. At the same time the SNP won a wave election; remember at that start of that campaign, Labour were comfortably ahead. One flaw in the ICM poll, but is not exclusive to them, is a need to upweight 18-24 year old voters in the sample. There are also legal difficulties in obtaining the personal information of 16-17 year olds who will be allowed to vote. Most polling companies that have been polling the referendum so far such as TNS BRMB are not exactly reputational and are reluctant to channel the people it polls into making a ‘forced choice’ between Yes and No. The TNS BRMB in December for example had the Yes 14% behind but that was based on 33% not saying how they would vote. The other problem is that despite the actual polling question being known; ‘Should Scotland be an independent country’ not all pollsters actually ask that question. As far as I can recall only Panelbase and ICM ask it, without exposition. For the record Panelbase are the most ‘pro Yes’ of the pollsters but underestimated the SNP back in 2011, so it’s record is questionable.

What we should see, with forced choice is what people expect to be the case anyway; a core 45% No, a core 40% Yes and people inbetween.

In terms of who finds independence more palatable it appears to be younger voters however they are defined. That goes for voters under 65 in general. Voters over 65 are opposed, but are not out of reach. The same is true of women who tend to be more against than in favour. Less well off voters, those in the ‘C2DE’ classification are in favour. What is noticeable is that according to ICM, of the 2011 voters for the SNP, 83-84% will vote yes. That bloc includes the casual SNP voters it picked up from the other parties in it’s 2011 wave election. Of the rump Labour vote, 26% will vote yes as will 26% of the Lib Dems. If that figures moves to just 30% or so, then Yes would be ahead.

There are two big issues that will test both sides. Firstly the economic recovery; one would expect that to impact the Yes cause, but if that recovery is linked to a Tory recovery in the polls (which may be happening) then what effect will an increased likelihood of a Tory victory have on the polls? Secondly, the European Elections means the whoring of UKIP for a few months in the summer. Given the massive gulf in voting intention, will UKIP’s bluster, which goes down like a lead balloon in Scotland serve to heighten the social and political differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

[afleitch]

Has the intervention by the ‘Gang of Three’ on the matter of a Scottish currency helped the Yes campaign? Survation’s new poll have Yes up 6 to 38% and No down 5 to 47% with 16% Don’t knows. The changes are from their last poll in January which came hot on the heels of ICM’s poll showing a narrow gap. Unfortunately Survation also changed their methodology which used to weight turnout against Westminster voting intention(!) so it’s difficult to confirm if there is correlation.

TNS also have released a poll, but this is from 6th February so is quite out of date. Yes is up 3 to 35%, No down 5 to 44% with the Don’t Knows at 21%.

As talked about a few weeks ago, we have pollsters without good track records releasing polls for the campaign. ICM dip their toe in now and then. Other pollsters have stayed away. Hopefully we will see the more established polling companies getting involved after the summer.

[afleitch]

As you know I wear a big 'Yes' hat

However I can say there is deep, deep concern within the No camp right now; they aren't speaking to or briefing each other yet. And Yes haven't started spending their money. In the last few weeks when faces need to be there and messages need to be hammered home that may make a difference.

[afleitch]

It just keeps getting better;

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/08/scottish-independence-lord-robertson-uk-global-status

'Lord Robertson, the former defence secretary and Nato chief, has claimed that Scottish independence would have a "cataclysmic" effect on European and global stability by undermining the UK on the world stage...

A former secretary general of Nato, Robertson said the "loudest cheers" after a yes vote would come from the west's enemies and other "forces of darkness".

"What could possibly justify giving the dictators, the persecutors, the oppressors, the annexers, the aggressors and the adventurers across the planet the biggest pre-Christmas present of their lives by tearing the United Kingdom apart?" Robertson told the Brookings Institute on Monday.'

This is becoming increasingly unhinged.

[afleitch]

ICM have it 52-48 no. Yes leads amongst those born in Scotland.

[afleitch]

If I was English, I would be a bit happy to see Scotland leaving the UK. Calm down dear Scots. No problem with you, ethnically speaking. Its just that you guys always provide Westminster with Labour members. Politically it'd be an advantage for the Tory.

Long-term, perhaps, but short-term, no.
Cameron is sure to lose in 2015 if Scotland leaves UK. Voters will blame him for that.

It won't get that far.  If Scotland votes to secede, Cameron will be forced out of office within a week.

Yes people seem to not want to deal with the fact we'd have a constitutional crisis. Labour wouldn't be untouched either. They effectively run the No campaign.

[afleitch]

I've only been following this from headlines. What's caused the upswing in support for independence? Have the paid communications started?

Crimea and Putin. Its very agreed that the Crimean (and also Eastern Ukraine to a lesser extent) helped sparking secessionism across Europe. Not that it didn't exist before. Just that their success gives them some moral support.

That makes absolutely no sense in this context.

[afleitch]

The real constitutional crisis would come if we have EdM elected in 2015 with a 40ish seat lead...

I have a feeling that in the event of independence the SNP's electoral strength at Holyrood would be replicated at Westminster. In other words if Scottish MP's would be involved in getting a good deal for Scotland before independence I doubt voters would be fussed about the Labour v Tory battle down south given that it wouldn't matter anymore. I could see strongly Labour areas at Westminster (and SNP areas at Holyrood) voting in SNP MP's in fairly large numbers. I don't see the Tories standing anyone there at all.