Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[politicus]

Best of luck!

[politicus]

Best of luck!

^^^^^

I think you Scottish should center your campaign on British History with emphasis on the imperialism years, that will undoubtedly win the yes campaign votes  

Scotland mainly joined England in 1707 because the Scottish elite could see, that the English had a good thing going with their emerging world empire and wanted in on it. The Scottish participation in all things imperial was generally much bigger than their share of the British population and the independence movement didnt really develop until the Empire was gone. One interpretation of modern Scottish nationalism is, that once the Empire was gone the Scots lost their main reason to stay in the union.

[politicus]

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

FF

[politicus]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

English Tories campaigning would be poison for the Scottish unionist side. And Thatcher was hated in Scotland and still is by many.

[politicus]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

English Tories campaigning would be poison for the Scottish unionist side. And Thatcher was hated in Scotland and still is by many.

(That's the point...)

OK, but not that clear since you are a conservative yourself. Using a smiley or three ... afterwards would be helpful when you are being sarcastic about your own side. Otherwise it just looks like ignorance.

[politicus]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

English Tories campaigning would be poison for the Scottish unionist side. And Thatcher was hated in Scotland and still is by many.

(That's the point...)

OK, but not that clear since you are a conservative yourself. Using a smiley or three ... afterwards would be helpful when you are being sarcastic about your own side. Otherwise it just looks like ignorance.

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.

Thats true. But it shows that you Americans dont really understand British Tories. Supporting unionism is part of their core identity and only a few extremists would want to see Scotland go.
Its still called the Conservative and Unionist Party after all

Edit: Okay I see that Wormguy got it. Just Mikados interpretation that was wrong.

[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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[politicus]

Wow, this is news.  I always got the impression that the SNP were left-of-Labour.  

If you look at their actual policies on most issues, that is indeed the case.
Their voter base is however quite fragmented and in some regions like the North East they are mainly people who would otherwise vote Conservative ("Tartan Tories").

[politicus]

And what would the remaining United Kingdom be called afterwards, that's what I want to know.

The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Not logical. Wales is a principality and Ulster is only an earldom.
Since the territory of England and Wales is (almost) identical to the Roman province of Britannia they could just call it Britannia (the six Ulster counties would be too small a part of the new state to matter much).

[politicus]

And what would the remaining United Kingdom be called afterwards, that's what I want to know.

The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Not logical. Wales is a principality and Ulster is only an earldom.
Since the territory of England and Wales is (almost) identical to the Roman province of Britannia they could just call it Britannia (the six Ulster counties would be too small a part of the new state to matter much).

They would be a larger part of the new state than the current one.

In all seriousness, the name would almost certainly not be changed. Though I guess they should drop the "Great".

Thats obviously true. By small I meant insignificant. A UK without Scotland would essentially be "Greater England" and in that sense NI would be even more insignificant/irrelevant than it is today.

[politicus]

Tavish Scott wants home rule for Shetland if Scotland leaves the UK.

Why do you consider that a bad thing? It would be natural for both the Orkney Islands and Shetland to have home rule since they are distinct communities. In the case of Shetland its quite far from mainland Scotland as well.

[politicus]

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.'

That's pretty delusional both regarding Britains importance in today's world and the consequences for Britains military and diplomatic strength of a Scottish secession.

[politicus]

Better Together's is here and Yes Scotland is here.

Far thicker Scottish accents in better together. Wonder why they chose a girl with such thin accent for the Yes campaign.

[politicus]

edit by el caudillo: please post in English

Hash is this some joke I didn't get? There has never been a requirement in the ToS to write in English and we have had plenty of posts in German and Spanish + comments/sentences in a multitude of others languages.

[politicus]

The Prime Minster needs to delay the parliamentary elections.  I just did the math, Labour would have a 42 seat majority based on polling now, and they would likely have 49 seats in Scotland.  

Given that the total number of seats would go down with 59, that would still be a Labour majority after Scotlands secession.

[politicus]

As a Canadian who has lived through a couple of referenda on independence in Quebec, allow me to predict what IMHO will happen.

I predict this will be like what happened in 1995 where at first everyone assumed the NO side would win easily, then the NO campaign ended up floundering and the Yes side captured people's imaginations with all this "Oui et tout sera possible!" (Yes and everything is possible)...in other words come with us abroad this spaceship for an exciting adventure into the unknown.

10 days before the referendum some shocking polls came out showing that Yes was ahead and had all the momentum etc...but in the end people who made up their minds at the very last minute got scared by the fact that voting Yes would literally pull the pin out of the grenade and they almost all went NO at the last minute...also there is a phenomenon in Quebec of the "shy federalist"...its kind of "uncool" to support the status quo in Quebec and so a lot of No voters would fib to pollsters. Anyways, despite final polls showing Yes ahead by as much as 5 or 6 points - the No side won 50.4 to 49.6

I think the EU makes a difference. It makes it significantly less risky for Scotland to separate. Also I doubt there are as many shy unionists as shy federalists. Its hardly uncool to be unionist.

[politicus]

I think the EU makes a difference. It makes it significantly less risky for Scotland to separate. Also I doubt there are as many shy unionists as shy federalists. Its hardly uncool to be unionist.

First of all, aren't there all kinds of questions about Scotland having to join the EU as a new member? In '95 people were told that Quebec would still have free trade with the US and use the Canadian dollar...the point is that No = safety and Yes = uncharted territory and if there is one thing we have learned from polling throughout the western world in recent years its that final polls tend to underestimate support for the status quo (ie: incumbent government or No in any referendum)...look at how much better Labour did compared to what the final polls said in 2010.

Anyways, i could be wrong but i predict No will do a bit better than the final polls and win by a few points.

I think that the effect will - rather obviously - be there, but it will be smaller than in Quebec. If the yes side gets a 4% lead (and that's far from impossible now that they have momentum), I think that's enough.

[politicus]

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/508353366154833922/photo/1

Latest YouGov poll has Yes ahead by 2%. Wow.  On the other hand I am pretty sure No will win, even if by a small margin.

Old news around here.

[politicus]

I think that the effect will - rather obviously - be there, but it will be smaller than in Quebec. If the yes side gets a 4% lead (and that's far from impossible now that they have momentum), I think that's enough.

First of all we have ONE poll showing Yes ahead by 2% and another with No ahead by 4%...and "momentum" is a bit of a myth. I have been polling and observing elections/referenda for the last 35 years and for all the talk about momentum and "jumping on a bandwagon" - more often than not when polls show one side surging ahead, the public often has second thoughts and backs away and whoever seemed to have this so-called "momentum" ends up doing a bit worse than predicted when the votes are counted. No one could possibly have LESS "momentum" than Gordon Brown in 2010 and yet look at how much better he did than the final polls all projected...and look at how all of Nick Clegg's momentum turned out to be a wet firecracker the moment the exit polls were announced.

Sure momentum is overrated, but it does work sometimes. That wasn't really central to my point. I just said it was quite possible for no to get a 4% lead in the polls and that will IMO be enough in the Scottish case because the two effects you mentioned - uncertainty and "shyness" -  will be smaller than in Quebec. We will see if yes increases enough to make this truly interesting.

[politicus]

Labour and LibDem would be hurt, and the SNP damaged badly....

Since the break would only become effectual in 2016 SNP would likely have a good election, if they decided to participate at all..

[politicus]

Don't forget "yes" was winning right before the Quebec referendum too.

Yeah, we discussed it earlier in the thread. The question is if the underpolling ("shy unionist") and unionism being the default option (voting safe when you are in the booth) are as strong as they were in Quebec. I tend to say no to both. "No" will do better than the polls, but no Quebec 1995-style better. But its obvious that "yes" will need a solid lead in the end to actually win. My bid is that a 4% lead will be enough.

[politicus]

Good article on the reasons "yes" is gaining with focus on SNP neutralising "the fear factor", especially among Labour-supporters.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/scottish-independence-no-vote-alex-salmond-second-referendum

[politicus]

It is interesting to me how much traction this is getting considering just how loyal Scotland has historically been to England. Scotland has always contributed disproportionate troops in British wars, including the American Revolution.

Empire is a keyword here.

Scotland joined the union in 1707 to get a share in the empire and contributed disproportionally to the expansion and running of the empire in almost any field (soldiers, missionaries, engineers,   trappers, sailors etc.) and benefitted a lot from the imperial economy . After the dissolution of the empire it became much less obvious why Scotland should be in union with England.

[politicus]

Scotland is very different to Quebec. For a start, there's no language issue (and so no really obvious large 95%-No-voting demographic).

You got a Tory 97% No-voting demographic. You could considder them the Anglophones of Scotland (granted they are only 10%, not 20%).